Cognism vs Lusha (2026)
The decision is who screens a number before your rep dials it, and how much certification your security team needs to see. Cognism screens its phone data against preference registers in twelve named jurisdictions before a number reaches a customer, keeps European data in the European Economic Area by default, and prices nothing publicly, which grades it A on outreach compliance and D on commercial transparency in the GTM Tech Index. Lusha holds the broadest certification set in the index, including the international standard for AI management and a separate responsible AI certification, publishes prices down to a permanent free tier, though the figures disagree across its own materials, and has added a sequence product whose sending carries no stated unsubscribe, suppression or complaint mechanism. Both send notices to European data subjects telling them they are held, and both grade A on data privacy. Where they part on data is the story each tells about it. Cognism names two of its supply partners, while Lusha's privacy notice says its data comes from brokers it does not name and its marketing says the data is verified at the source rather than aggregated. Neither publishes accuracy broken out by region.
- Your reps dial into many markets. Cognism screens its telephone data against preference registers in twelve named jurisdictions, so a registered number never reaches your team to be dialed, where Lusha's compliance apparatus governs how data is collected rather than what happens when a customer presses send.
- Your European data should stay in Europe. Cognism keeps European data inside the European Economic Area by default and moves the minimum under standard contractual clauses when it must, where Lusha processes in the United States and Israel under those clauses with no choice of region documented.
- You want records kept current without paying twice. Cognism maintains enriched customer records rather than filling them once, spends credit again only when a material detail such as a job move changes, and lets the same credits work across prospecting, enrichment and its interface.
- Your security review wants the whole certificate shelf. Lusha's public trust center lists a SOC 2 report and the international standards for information security, cloud security, cloud privacy, privacy information management, privacy by design and AI management, plus a cloud security registry listing, and packages penetration test summaries and a sub processor list for procurement.
- You want to start without a sales call. Lusha runs a permanent free tier, publishes paid tiers with seat counts and credit bands, and opens its interface and webhooks from the second paid tier rather than reserving them for enterprise, where Cognism routes every package and add on to a sales conversation.
- Your AI governance review asks for audits rather than policies. Lusha holds the AI management systems standard and a separate responsible AI certification audited across governance, privacy and accountability, which its own comparison notes its three largest rivals do not publish.
This comparison is published by GTM Tech Index, an independent research platform that compares go to market software vendors objectively. Cognism and Lusha are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials, under the GTM Tech Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Cognism | Lusha | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Data & Enrichment | Data & Enrichment |
| Founded | 2015 | Not published |
| Headquarters | London, United Kingdom | Boston, MA |
| Website | www.cognism.com | www.lusha.com |
Side by Side
| Axis | C Cognism |
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
Cognism
Cognism is a London based contact data vendor founded in 2015 whose differentiating asset is mobile numbers verified by researchers placing calls, sold through prospecting, continuous customer record enrichment and bulk delivery, with the same credits working across all three. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on outreach compliance, because suppression happens before delivery: telephone data is screened against preference registers in twelve named jurisdictions, from both United Kingdom registers to Australia and Sweden. It takes A on data privacy, naming legitimate interest to the article and notifying people it holds their data within the statutory timeframe. Eight axes sit at B, including outcome evidence, where an independent two hundred account test put it first in its cohort on European email accuracy, and security, where one page states its SOC 2 report covers all five trust criteria and the same page later names two. It grades D on commercial transparency, publishing its credit rules without a single price, and C on stewardship and exit.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Lusha
Lusha is a Boston based contact data platform with more than three hundred million verified contacts, a browser extension that is its most used entry point, enrichment, buying signals, a sequence product and conversation intelligence drawing on the same credit pool. The GTM Tech Index grades it A on security, holding the broadest certification set in the index, from a SOC 2 report and the international standards for information security, cloud security and privacy management to the AI management standard, with penetration test summaries packaged for procurement. It takes A on data privacy, sending notices to European data subjects and running a self serve privacy center for people who are not customers. It takes B on stewardship, for audited AI management and responsible AI certifications, and B on five more. It grades C on commercial transparency, publishing prices its own materials contradict, C on outreach compliance, where its sequence product carries no stated suppression mechanism, and C on platform terms.
Source: GTM Tech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Cognism better than Lusha?
It depends on whether your risk is the dial or the security review. Cognism grades A on outreach compliance in the GTM Tech Index, screening numbers against preference registers before delivery, and keeps European data in Europe by default. Lusha grades A on security, with the broadest certification set in the index, and B on stewardship for audited AI governance. Both grade A on data privacy and both notify European data subjects that they are held.
Is Lusha cheaper than Cognism?
Lusha publishes prices and Cognism does not, but Lusha's figures disagree across sources. Reviews published within months of each other report its free tier at five, forty, fifty or one hundred credits and its entry paid tier between roughly twenty two and seventy dollars a user a month, and a phone reveal costs several times an email address. Cognism publishes its credit rules and five seats per package without a price, and third party procurement reporting places its entry package near fifteen hundred dollars per user a year plus a platform fee. Graded by GTM Tech Index against seventeen capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do Cognism and Lusha tell people their data is held?
Both do, which is rare in this category. Cognism notifies business contacts within the statutory timeframe that it holds their data, is registered as a data broker with a United States state regulator and runs a toll free rights line. Lusha sends personal information notices to European and United Kingdom data subjects with an opt out and runs a self serve privacy center for people who are not customers, and its notices are documented for those regions only. Graded by GTM Tech Index against seventeen capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 27, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where do Cognism and Lusha get their data?
Cognism describes four layers: community sourced data, public sources such as company registries and job postings, its own technology modeling, and intent and event data from two named third party providers. Lusha's privacy notice names two source types, trusted data brokers and publicly available interfaces, without naming a single broker, while comparison content on its own site says its data is verified at the source rather than aggregated. When the legal document and the marketing disagree, the GTM Tech Index believes the legal document.
How does the GTM Tech Index grade Cognism and Lusha?
Both are graded on the same seventeen capability and compliance axes from public sources, Cognism at a documented depth of sixteen and Lusha at seventeen. Cognism takes A on outreach compliance and data privacy, B on eight axes, C on six and D on commercial transparency. Lusha takes A on security and data privacy, B on six axes and C on nine, including commercial transparency. 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 Data & Enrichment page.
The shared silence is accuracy by region, the variable that decides what a usable contact actually costs. Cognism's strongest independent evidence covers European accuracy, reviewers describe its data outside Europe as competitive rather than differentiated, and the vendor never states that limit itself. Lusha publishes more than three hundred million verified contacts, reviewers consistently report that its accuracy varies by region and contact type, and the vendor addresses that nowhere.
Neither publishes coverage or accuracy broken out by market. The second shared silence is the model. Lusha holds two audited AI certifications and still names no model, Cognism names none either, and neither states whether customer records train or tune any model. Two points belong here rather than in the verdict. Lusha's extension surfaces contact details while a user browses LinkedIn profiles, with no conformance position published.
And Lusha describes a French regulator's position that it is not itself subject to the European regulation as a controller, which is the vendor's reading of its own status and one a procurement team should verify. Ask both in writing for accuracy and coverage in the regions you sell into, and ask Lusha whether unused credits expire monthly or annually.