Amplemarket vs Lusha (2026)
The decision is which half of the problem you need answered, because both vendors built a serious compliance apparatus and built it around different things. Lusha's governs the data: a named legal basis, personal information notices sent to European data subjects with a right to opt out, broker registration in California, standard contractual clauses, annual independent privacy audits and a self serve privacy centre a non customer can use. It stops at the point of send, with no electronic marketing statute named in connection with its sequence product and no unsubscribe, suppression or complaint route for outbound campaigns located. Amplemarket's runs the other way and reaches further than anything else in this index: it accepts controller status over its own licensed data in writing, names Article 14 as the source of what a data subject must be told, and publishes guidance instructing customers to state at the top of an email or the start of a call where the prospect's data came from and why they are being contacted. One vendor protects the person in the database. The other tells you how to contact them lawfully.
- Your review will ask who owes the notice duty. Amplemarket designates itself a controller of both its licensed data and its customers' data, which most contact vendors work hard to avoid, names Article 14 by name, states a thirty day response window, and publishes a request route for individuals who want erasure and no further contact.
- You want the penetration test findings, not an attestation that one happened. Amplemarket states that the annual third party test report evidencing potential vulnerabilities is shared on its trust centre, which inverts the usual incentive, alongside a service organisation control type two maintained with annual external audits.
- Deliverability has to be a product layer rather than an assumption. Warmup, a domain health centre, a deliverability booster, a spam checker and mailbox recommendation ship on every tier rather than gated upward, with authentication monitoring and a published aggregate bounce rate under three percent.
- You are buying data rather than a sending platform. Lusha is a contact and company database first, consumed through a browser extension, a filtered application and a programmatic interface on a credit model, where its counterpart's annual only entry commitment is 7,200 dollars before any evaluation of fit.
- The certificate wall matters to your procurement team. A public trust centre enumerates an audited service organisation control report plus international standards for information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and artificial intelligence management.
- You want the supply chain characterised in the legal document rather than the marketing. Lusha's privacy notice names two source classes and limits the categories collected to what appears on a business card or an email signature block, where its counterpart names no supplier, aggregator or acquisition channel at all for a database refreshed at seventy million records a week.
Plain facts
| Amplemarket | Lusha | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Sales Engagement & Outreach | Data & Enrichment |
| Founded | 2018 | Not published |
| Headquarters | San Francisco, CA | Boston, MA |
| Website | www.amplemarket.com | www.lusha.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | A Amplemarket |
L Lusha |
|---|---|---|
|
AI Capability
|
||
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| AI Disclosure and Model Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
|
Compliance and Risk
|
||
| Outreach Compliance Posture | ||
| Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Data Licensing and Provenance | ||
| Platform Terms Exposure | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| Recipient Disclosure and Authenticity | ||
|
Integration and Deployment
|
||
| Ecosystem and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
|
Commercial and Operational
|
||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Exit and Data Portability | ||
| Deliverability and Sending Discipline | ||
| Segment and Market Coverage | ||
The short version of each
Amplemarket
Amplemarket is a consolidated outbound platform combining a stated two hundred million contact database, multichannel sequencing across email, phone, the professional network, text and messaging, a native dialer and a full deliverability suite, with a copilot layer that surfaces signals, researches prospects and drafts sequences for a representative to approve. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on outreach compliance posture, the deepest published surface of its kind in the index, because it names the legal basis and works through the balancing reasoning, references the notification article by name, and publishes operational guidance with a worked example telling customers to state where a prospect's data was acquired and why they are being contacted. It also holds A on data privacy for accepting controller status in writing.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Lusha
Lusha is an established business contact and company data provider sold through a browser extension, a filtered web application and a programmatic interface, consumed on a credit model where an email address, a phone number and a recorded call each draw a different amount from one pool. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on security certifications, the broadest certification set in the index, enumerating an audited service organisation control report alongside international standards for information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and artificial intelligence management, with in product controls named individually and penetration test summaries and a sub processor list packaged for procurement. It also holds A on data privacy posture.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Amplemarket better than Lusha?
Which half of the problem you need answered. Lusha's compliance apparatus governs the data, with a named legal basis, notices to European data subjects, broker registration, standard contractual clauses and annual independent audits, and it stops at the point of send. Amplemarket's runs the other way, accepting controller status in writing, naming Article 14, and publishing guidance telling customers to state where a prospect's data came from at the top of an email. One protects the person in the database. The other tells you how to contact them lawfully.
Which one helps you send lawfully?
Amplemarket, and the GTM Tech Index grades it A against C on that axis. Its dedicated data protection page names legitimate interest as the operative basis and works through the balancing reasoning rather than asserting compliance, references Article 14 by name, states a thirty day response window, and publishes a request route for erasure and no further contact. Uniquely in this index it publishes operational guidance with a worked example, telling customers to state where the prospect's data was acquired and why they are being contacted. At Lusha no electronic marketing statute is named in connection with the sequence product.
Do the people in these databases get told?
Adapt.io's counterpart here answers this better than most: Lusha sends personal information notices to European data subjects under the notification article with an explicit right to opt out, and runs a self serve privacy centre where a non customer can exercise rights directly. Amplemarket accepts controller status, which implies notice duties over a two hundred million record database, and its published mechanism is reactive rather than proactive, a route to ask for erasure rather than a notice on first entry. The index records that gap on the vendor's own record.
How much do Amplemarket and Lusha cost?
Amplemarket for one tier and neither for the rest. Amplemarket publishes its entry plan at 600 dollars a month for two users on annual billing only, with contact, email and phone credit allowances stated per user per year and credit mechanics explained, while its two upper tiers are quote only. Lusha publishes prices its own materials contradict, with independent reviews within months of each other reporting four different free tier credit figures, an entry tier spanning roughly twenty two to seventy dollars a user a month, and three different phone reveal costs.
Which has better security documentation?
Both hold strong security disclosure and they are strong in different ways. Amplemarket publishes the annual third party penetration test report itself on its trust centre, which is rarer than publishing an attestation and inverts the usual incentive, alongside a service organisation control type two with annual external audits and named key management infrastructure. Lusha holds the broader set, enumerating an audited service organisation control report plus six international standards covering information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and artificial intelligence management.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade Amplemarket and Lusha?
Both are graded on the same seventeen capability and compliance axes from public sources, and both sit at full documented depth. Both take A on data privacy posture and A on security certifications. The GTM Tech Index grades Amplemarket A on outreach compliance posture and deliverability discipline, where Lusha holds C on both, and B on autonomy, operational evidence, ecosystem depth, residency, commercial transparency and segment coverage. Lusha takes B on data licensing, AI safety and stewardship, recipient disclosure, ecosystem depth, residency and segment coverage. The index publishes no composite score and declares no winner.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Sales Engagement & Outreach page.
Both vendors are silent on the AI layer, and at one of them the silence covers a synthetic copy of a named employee's voice. Amplemarket's voice product generates messages using cloned representative voices and sends them to prospects at scale, with a customer testimonial on the vendor's own pricing page describing the cloning as a game changer for personalised outreach.
Nothing published states how a voice model is created, where it is stored, how long it is retained, whether the representative can revoke it, or what becomes of it when that person leaves the company or the customer stops paying. A cloned voice is closer to biometric data than to a message template and is governed as such in several jurisdictions.
Nor is there any position on Article 50 of the EU AI Act, in force since 2 August 2026, no statement that a cloned voice message is labelled, and no mechanism by which the person hearing it would know. That sits directly beside the same vendor's best in index guidance telling customers to disclose where a prospect's data came from, so the company most forthcoming about provenance is silent about whether the voice is real.
Lusha's silence is narrower and carries its own irony: the vendor holds an independently audited artificial intelligence management certification and a separate responsible artificial intelligence certification, and still names no model, provider, version or hosting location for its enrichment, its buying signals or its generated sequences. Attested governance and disclosed architecture are different things and only the first is on offer. This index records what is published and asserts nothing about compliance. Ask Amplemarket what happens to a departing employee's voice model, and ask Lusha what generates the copy.