Adapt.io
B2B contact and company database sold at the budget end of the data tier, built around a web app for filtered prospecting and list building plus a Chrome extension that returns verified emails and direct dials while a user views a profile. The company states a directory of roughly 150 to 200 million contacts and 30 million companies with particular depth in technology and SaaS. A separate product, Adapt Engage, adds basic outreach sequencing; the core platform is a data tool and carries no dialer or automation of its own. Pricing is published and self serve, and users are unlimited on paid plans.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
17 of 17 axes rated · 8 graded A or B
A conventional database and browser extension product. Search filters, verification and CRM export are the substance, and no documented model driven behaviour was located behind them. The grade sits at C rather than lower because the vendor does not lean on an AI claim it cannot support: the bottom band is reserved for a marketed AI story that fails the removal test, not for a competent non AI product.
Nothing in the core product acts without a person. Contact reveals are user initiated, list building is manual and filtered, and daily view caps of 25 to 100 depending on plan put a hard human governed ceiling on throughput. The boundary is legible from the product surface rather than stated as a policy, and the separate Adapt Engage sequencer introduces sending that the public material does not describe in oversight terms.
No model stack is disclosed and no explanation is published of how records are verified, scored or matched, which is the transparency question that matters for a data product even in the absence of AI claims. A buyer cannot tell from public sources what verification actually runs before an address is marked verified.
Coverage figures stand in for results. The published numbers are database size, contact counts and company counts, which describe inventory rather than performance. For a data vendor the outcome measures that matter are match rate, bounce rate on delivered addresses and phone connect rate against a stated sample, and none are published. Third party reviewers report accuracy as variable relative to premium providers, which is a signal about the gap rather than a measurement of it.
The company supplies the contacts that outbound programmes are run against and, through Adapt Engage, some of the sending. Nothing public describes suppression handling, opt out propagation into customer campaigns, or how CAN SPAM and equivalent obligations are supported in product. The directory side does carry an individual opt out, which is graded on the recipient axis; what is missing here is anything that helps the customer send lawfully. No public enforcement action located.
The privacy policy is unusually specific for this tier: it describes the directory's composition, tells individuals how to check whether they are listed, and documents update and removal routes. Two gaps keep it out of the top band. No public data processing agreement was located for customers, and the lawful basis for holding business contact records on individuals who never dealt with the company is not stated, which is the question a European buyer has to answer for itself.
Provenance is described in classes rather than left blank, which is better than most of the budget tier. The published account is that most directory information comes from Adapt.io members, that individuals may add their own details, and that the directory is supplemented with publicly available information and with records from data providers the company describes as legally authorised to supply them. What is missing is the legal footing behind each class and any indemnification position, so a buyer inherits the provenance question rather than the answer.
The headline workflow is a Chrome extension that surfaces emails and direct dials while the user is on a professional network profile, which is the pattern that draws platform enforcement in this category. The vendor is silent on method: nothing public states whether the extension reads page content, whether it operates through any sanctioned interface, or what the company's position is if accounts using it are restricted. The risk is real and unpriced for the buyer.
The cross client question is answered, and the answer is worth reading before signing. The directory is described as drawing mostly from Adapt.io members, which means the contact data a customer contributes becomes inventory the platform serves to everyone including that customer's competitors. Disclosing this plainly is what earns the middle band. The gap is the absence of any documented opt out or contractual exclusion from contribution, and no published retention or deletion terms for customer account data.
Stronger than most data vendors on the question of whether targeted people know they are in the system. The company states that it notifies individuals by email the first time their business contact information is added to the directory, gives them an opportunity to opt out at that point, and publishes a self service lookup so anyone can check whether they are listed. The gap is the AI side: nothing addresses generated or agentic interaction, and no Article 50 position is stated for the sequencing product.
Named native export paths to Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho, Outreach and Salesgear from the middle tier, with API access available on paid plans, so the integration claim is specific rather than a logo wall. Depth is where it thins: sync direction, field mapping, deduplication behaviour against existing CRM records and failure handling are not documented anywhere a buyer can read before purchase.
Multi tenant cloud is the whole public answer. No hosting region, no residency option for European customers, and no statement of where directory or customer account data is stored. For a product whose inventory is European business contact records, region is a question buyers should be able to answer without a sales conversation.
Security is claimed in general terms. The privacy policy commits to reasonable security controls against loss, misuse and unauthorised access, and no trust centre, enumerated certification, audit report or penetration test attestation was located. Third party vendor risk profiles for the product exist but are assembled from outside rather than published by the company.
A buyer can budget the actual purchase path without talking to anyone. Plan names, monthly prices and credit allowances are published, a permanent free tier carries stated credit limits, the paid tiers start around 49 dollars a month with the next tier around 99 dollars adding phone numbers and native CRM export, annual billing carries a stated discount, seats are unlimited rather than metered, and the daily contact view caps that govern real throughput are published rather than discovered in month two. Enterprise remains quote only, which is the one gap.
CSV export unlocks from the entry paid tier, so records can be taken out. Everything governing the exit itself is unpublished: whether a customer retains rights to directory records already exported after termination, what is deleted and on what timeline, and how renewal and cancellation work. The published fact that credits do not roll over month to month is the kind of term that belongs in this disclosure and is the only one a buyer can find.
Data quality is a deliverability input and the company markets verification, but no measured bounce rate, no verification methodology and no sending guidance are published. Where the Adapt Engage sequencer sends on a customer's behalf, nothing documents warmup, volume governance, rotation or what happens when reputation degrades. Deliverability is invoked as a benefit of verified data with no documented mechanism behind it.
The segment is stated clearly and the pricing structure corroborates it: individual sellers and small teams running mid market outbound, with unlimited seats and low entry cost, rather than enterprise revenue organisations. Coverage is described as strongest in technology, SaaS and IT verticals across United States and European targets, and the company cites a global customer base in the hundreds. The gap is evidence: no named customers matching the segment claim and no published language or regional coverage detail.
Compared With
Editorial comparisons are published only where the index assesses two vendors as direct competitors for the same buyer. Each carries a verdict, the buyer conditions that favor each vendor, and a graded side by side.
Pricing
What this vendor charges, what it commits to in writing, and where the bill can move. Figures the vendor publishes itself are labeled Vendor Published. Figures labeled Estimated come from other sources and the vendor has not confirmed them.
- ›There is a free tier. Paid starts at $49 a month, or $490 for the year, and the company shows you that buying monthly for a year would cost $588. The next tier is $99 monthly or $990 yearly against $1,188.
- ›Publishing the undiscounted figure next to the discounted one is the honest way to show an annual saving, and it works out at two months free on both plans. Most companies in this category just claim a percentage.
- ›The allowances are separated properly. Enrichment credits, phone number credits and a daily limit are three different things published separately, because they run out at different times.
- ›What is still missing is what one credit actually gets you, so you cannot turn 500 credits into a number of contacts. That gap has now appeared in every credit priced vendor I have looked at.
- ›There is also no published price for going over your allowance. If you run out, the only route shown is moving up a tier or asking for a custom plan.
How the price works
What you are charged for, and what makes the bill go up.
Self serve tiers with a free entry, metered on separated credit types. A free tier at $0. A paid tier at $49 monthly or $490 annually, with the vendor publishing $588 as the undiscounted cost of twelve monthly payments. A further tier at $99 monthly or $990 annually against a published undiscounted $1,188. A custom tier above that, described as based on the buyer's needs with no figure attached. Both annual figures represent two months free, approximately 17 percent, and the vendor publishes the comparison rather than only the percentage.
Entitlements are published as three separate constraints rather than one pooled allowance. Enrichment credits are published at 25, 500 and 1,000 across the tiers with custom above. Telephone number credits are published separately at 100. A daily limit is published at 25, 50 and 100 contacts, rising to no limit on the custom tier. A configurable cap on contacts retrievable per company is published as a control for account based campaigns.
Export routes are published by name across six destination platforms covering record systems and sequencing tools, with comma separated file export available at the lower tiers and direct record system export above.
Administrative controls are published on the upper tiers: monthly credit allocation rules across a team to prevent overuse, and configurable weekly or monthly usage reporting per team member.
The trial is seven days with no credit card required. No rate is published for credits beyond an allowance, and no statement of what a single enrichment or telephone credit retrieves appears anywhere.
What the contract says about your data
What the vendor commits to in writing once your data is in the product.
Thin. Two documents are reachable from the pricing page, terms and conditions and a privacy notice, and no security page, trust portal, processing agreement or sub processor listing was located from that route.
What was not established: a signable data processing agreement, an enumerated sub processor list, any named certification or attestation, a retention period expressed as a duration, a residency or hosting statement, and a transfer mechanism for European or United Kingdom data. Only the pricing page footer was followed, so that is a partial retrieval rather than a confirmed absence.
The custody question here is the one that attaches to every contact data vendor and it deserves the same weight regardless of the modest price. The product is a database of business contact records and telephone numbers about individuals who have no relationship with the buyer, and the buyer exports those records into their own systems, where they become the buyer's responsibility rather than the vendor's. The published export destinations include six named platforms, so the data leaves the vendor's control by design and at volume.
A buyer should therefore establish two things that this vendor's published material does not address: on what lawful basis the records were assembled, and what obligations follow the records once exported. For a European or United Kingdom buyer those questions are not procurement detail, they are the difference between a usable list and a liability, and the absence of a published processing agreement makes them harder to answer in advance.
Getting started
What it costs and what is included before the product is running.
None charged and none located. The product is self serve across the published range, the trial is seven days with no credit card required, and no setup fee, onboarding charge, migration rate, professional services rate or minimum term was found on any surface reached.
A free tier runs beneath the paid plans with its own published allowances, so evaluation does not require a trial clock at all for a buyer testing at low volume.
The published annual arrangement is stated as an alternative billing frequency rather than a commitment with a penalty, and the vendor publishes the undiscounted comparison so a buyer can see exactly what the annual choice saves: $98 on the entry paid tier and $198 on the tier above, in both cases equivalent to two months.
The cost that cannot be modeled is data consumption beyond an allowance. Enrichment credits, telephone number credits and a daily limit are each published as quantities, and no rate is published for exceeding any of them. The escalation path published is a custom plan described as based on the buyer's needs, with no band or per credit rate attached.
Export destinations are published and matter to total cost in a way a fee schedule would not capture: the vendor names six platforms it exports to directly, so a buyer whose stack is among them avoids intermediary tooling, and one whose stack is not should assume a manual file step.
What to watch for
Where this pricing can surprise a buyer who has not read it closely.
A small vendor doing the arithmetic honestly, including the part that makes its own discount look smaller.
Three self serve tiers are published with both billing figures and, unusually, the undiscounted annual comparison alongside the discounted one. The entry paid tier is $49 monthly or $490 annually against a stated $588 if bought monthly across a year. The tier above is $99 monthly or $990 annually against $1,188. So the vendor publishes not just its annual price but the figure it is discounted from, which resolves to two months free, or approximately 17 percent, at both levels.
That is the right way to present an annual saving and it is notably rarer than it should be. Across this tranche the pattern has been a single headline percentage that holds at one tier and collapses at the others. This vendor publishes the arithmetic instead of the claim, and the arithmetic is consistent between tiers.
The entitlement disclosure is also better than the price point implies. Rather than a single pooled credit number, the vendor separates enrichment credits from telephone number credits and publishes a daily limit alongside both, which are three different constraints that bind at different times. Published quantities run 25, 500 and 1,000 on the enrichment line, with 100 published on the telephone line, and daily limits of 25, 50 and 100 rising to no limit on the custom tier. A per company contact cap is published as a configurable control, which is a genuine account based marketing consideration rather than a feature list entry.
Administrative controls are published in a way that suggests the vendor understands who actually buys this: monthly credit allocation rules to prevent overuse across a team, and configurable weekly or monthly usage reports by team member. Those are the controls a manager needs and most vendors at this price do not mention them.
The familiar gap remains. The credits are separated and quantified, and nothing published states what one enrichment credit or one telephone credit retrieves, so the allowances still cannot be converted into contacts. That failure has now appeared in eight vendors across this tranche without exception.
One further absence worth naming: no rate is published for credits beyond the allowance, so a team that exhausts its monthly allocation has no published path other than moving up a tier or requesting a custom plan.
The numeric field carries $49, the entry paid tier on monthly billing, with the free tier named in the headline rather than recorded as the entry price.