Kanlet

The domain suffix and the press coverage both lead with artificial intelligence, and the price list settles the question the other way. Tiers are denominated in tracked contacts, at ten thousand, forty thousand and eighty thousand and above, with expected lead output published against each band. Nothing on the price list is denominated in model usage.

Strip the models and what remains is the entire value proposition: monitoring a known contact base for job moves, matching those moves to accounts, writing the result into the customer's system of record, flagging departed contacts and refreshing stale records. That is a matching and monitoring product. The generative layer sits downstream and is described as assisted email writing and personalisation, which is real but optional to the core promise. Graded C under the standing rule that the bottom band is for a marketed claim that fails the removal test, not for a competent product with model features layered on.

Three separate automated behaviours run against a customer's own systems and none carries a published oversight mechanism. Outreach is automated with generative personalisation. Prospecting automation on the professional network is listed as an included feature on every tier. And the record refresh writes into the customer's system of record every month, flagging old contacts, updating existing ones and creating new ones.

Nothing published describes an approval step, a confidence threshold below which a match is not written, a review queue, a prohibition, an escalation route or an audit trail. The record creation path deserves particular attention because a wrong job change match does not merely waste an email, it silently writes an incorrect employer against a real person in the buyer's system of record and then triggers outreach on the strength of it. Held at C rather than lower because the volumes involved are modest by design and the product is framed throughout as surfacing leads for a rep to work rather than closing the loop unattended.

Generative artificial intelligence is named as the mechanism behind outreach personalisation and assisted email writing, and that is the whole of the disclosure. No model provider, no family, no version, no inference location, no data handling terms for prompts or outputs, and no statement of whether the same models touch the matching layer or only the writing layer. The omission that matters most on this product is an accuracy figure for the job change match itself.

A false positive means a rep contacts a real person to congratulate them on a move they did not make, and a false negative means the signal the entire subscription is bought for never fires. Neither an accuracy rate, a validation method, a confidence indicator nor a refresh latency is published. The privacy policy does grant a right not to be subject to solely automated decisions including profiling, which is a rights statement rather than a transparency one.

Nine separate statistics carry the argument across the homepage and not one has a source attached: a quarter of contacts changing jobs annually, seventy percent of former customer leads missed, former customers converting three times higher, twelve percent of target accounts holding more than three former champions, outbound to former customers six times more likely to become an opportunity, deals three times more likely to close, reps spending seventy two percent of the week on non selling activity, ninety percent of the modern funnel unseen, ninety percent of collective network data invisible and eighty five percent of these opportunities missed.

Several are specific enough that the missing citation is conspicuous. No case study, no named customer, no named testimonial and no quantified customer result was located anywhere on the site, and no review platform presence was found. The pricing page also claims a return on investment guarantee with no terms, scope or mechanism published anywhere.

Recorded carefully rather than held against the vendor: a customer logo band appears on two pages and the images did not resolve on retrieval, so logos may well be displayed to a browser and this is a failure to read them rather than a finding that they are absent. What is available for corroboration is press coverage of a pre seed round of roughly four hundred thousand dollars in February 2024, which evidences the company rather than the product.

Automated email sequences plus professional network prospecting automation, sold into European and American markets, with no anti spam policy, acceptable use policy or sending policy located anywhere on the site. No commercial email statute is named, no unsubscribe or opt out commitment is made in the product context, and no position is taken on who bears responsibility for consent when the tracked person never gave any.

Held above the floor by three real things: the privacy policy names GDPR and enumerates legal bases for European processing, it states an absolute right to object to processing for direct marketing purposes, and a data processing agreement is published rather than merely referenced. The gap is that all three sit in the privacy estate and none reaches the outbound product, so a buyer running sequences through this tool has no published rulebook to follow.

Substantial for a company at this stage and undone by a structural omission at the centre of the product. Present and creditable: legal bases enumerated for European processing, all eight data subject rights set out including the right against solely automated decision making, standard contractual clauses named for onward transfers, a data protection officer contact, a grievance officer named as an individual with a postal address, a published processing agreement, an express statement that the company is not in the business of selling information, a link to a security incidents page, and a policy dated September 2025.

The decisive problem is who the policy covers. It recognises exactly two categories of person, the customer and the user, and states that a reader's data relationship varies according to which of those two capacities they interact in. The tracked individuals are neither.

The champions, buyers and end users whose job moves are monitored, whose relationship graphs are assembled and whose records are combined with material from data aggregators, public sources and advertising networks appear only as contacts, which is to say as data belonging to a customer rather than as people holding rights. There is no notice to them, no removal route and no self service lookup.

This is the third occurrence of that carve out shape in this index after Boomerang and CallSine and it is the most severe, because here the excluded population is the entire subject of the product. Separately, no California or other American state privacy section exists at all despite a Delaware incorporation and an American buyer base.

Sources are disclosed at category level and the disclosure is more candid than most: information about contacts is collected from third party sources described as data aggregators, public sources and advertising networks, and combined with what the customer uploads or synchronises. Naming advertising networks as an input to a business relationship graph is an unusual admission and it is to the vendor's credit that it appears in writing.

A browser extension captures data from websites, from the professional network and from the customer's own mail, which is a further and quite different acquisition route. What is missing is everything that would let a buyer assess the licence chain or a tracked person exercise a right. No individual supplier is named. No notification reaches a person when their record enters the system. No removal route or self service lookup exists for anyone outside the customer relationship.

And no basis is stated for the mail capture path, where the third parties whose details sit in a customer's inbox have no relationship with either party. Adapt.io holds the higher band on this axis for disclosing its contribution mechanism and pairing it with an opt out, and the opt out is the piece absent here.

A browser extension captures data from websites, from the customer's mail and from the professional network, and prospecting automation on that network is listed as an included feature on every priced tier including entry. The actions run from the buyer's own account, so the buyer holds the credential that gets restricted if the platform objects.

Nothing is published on method, rate limiting, activity ceilings, session handling or credential custody, and no position is taken on the platform's terms of service. This is the standard placement for an extension pulling contact data off professional network profiles with no stated method.

Held at C rather than lower because there is none of the aggravating material that has produced the bottom band elsewhere in this index: no multi account rotation, no marketing that sells evasion or undetectability, no claim to operate past platform limits, and no replication of the same automation across additional consumer platforms.

The cross customer question is raised by the vendor's own wording and then left open. Contact information is used to provide and improve the services, to develop new features and services, and to enhance the services by combining information about contacts with data from other sources. On a product whose asset is an aggregated relationship graph, whether one customer's champion map informs another customer's matching is the question a buyer should ask, and nothing published answers it.

No model training position, no tenancy statement, no retention period beyond a statement that data is kept as long as necessary and that the period varies. The genuine counterweight is an express commitment that the company is not in the business of selling information to advertisers or other third parties, which is a clearer negative statement than most vendors here offer, and a stated intention to delete or anonymise when data is no longer needed.

The tracked person is the least informed party in the transaction. They do not know that a change in their employment fired an alert, that a map of who they know is being searched for a route to them, or that their prior relationship with a vendor has been scored as a buying signal against their new employer.

The outreach that follows is generated and sent automatically with no published disclosure of its artificial origin, and professional network automation adds a second synthetic surface where actions carrying social meaning are performed without a person choosing to perform them. No position on the European marking obligation is taken.

Boomerang holds the higher band on a structural ground that does not transfer here: in a genuine warm introduction the thing the recipient believes is true, because a real colleague really is vouching. This product routes the same signal into direct automated outreach rather than through the relationship owner, so the mitigation is absent.

Integration is central to the value proposition, since a signal that does not reach the system of record is worthless, and the published detail does not match that centrality. Synchronisation with systems of record and sales engagement tools is claimed on every tier, and a pricing answer names Salesforce, Outreach and Salesloft as targets for record updates.

Beyond those three names there is no integration catalogue, no connector list, no developer documentation, no webhook description and no model context protocol server. Advanced interface access is reserved to the custom priced top tier, so a mid tier buyer wanting to build against the data cannot. Recorded as observed: the site footer carries an integrations link on every page and it resolves to nothing, as do the three product links beside it.

Weaker than a plain single region answer because no storage location is stated at all. The privacy policy says the company is based in Delaware and that personal data may be transferred to affiliates or third parties located in other countries, with standard contractual clauses named as the safeguard for transfers out of the European Economic Area. That is a transfer mechanism rather than a residency position.

No processing region, hosting provider, data centre or sub processor register is published. The gap is more pointed than usual because the only physical address published anywhere on the site is in India while the stated corporate base is Delaware, so a European or American buyer cannot tell from published material which jurisdictions their contact graph actually rests in. Vendors holding the higher band on this axis have all published an unambiguous posture, whether that is a single named country, a customer selectable region or storage on the buyer's own hardware.

No certification is named anywhere and the two published security statements are assertions rather than evidence. The privacy policy commits to reasonable measures and adds that no method is completely secure. A pricing answer claims state of the art encryption, secure server environments, regular security audits and compliance checks, and names no standard, auditor, audit period, scope or report route behind any of it.

That is the pattern this index has repeatedly flagged, where asserting controls without enumerating them is weaker than it looks. Two things hold the grade at C rather than below. A processing agreement is published rather than promised.

And the privacy policy links a dedicated security incidents page for past and ongoing incidents, which is genuinely rare at any size and rarer still at this one, since a company choosing to publish an incident history is accepting a disclosure obligation most of its larger competitors decline.

The reason a buyer should still press: this product requests synchronisation access to the system of record and capture access to the user's own mail, which is high trust access held by an early stage company with no attestation behind it.

Considerably better than the demo gated norm for a company at this stage. Two of three tiers carry real monthly figures, at 850 and 2,500 dollars, and the unit of pricing is named rather than implied: the tiers are sized by the tracked contact base at ten thousand, forty thousand and eighty thousand and above.

Expected output is published against each band as a retroactive lead count and an ongoing monthly range, which lets a buyer reason about cost per surfaced lead rather than only cost per month. Both add ons carry prices, at 850 dollars a month for account level tracking of a thousand accounts and ten thousand dollars a year for cleanup of fifty thousand records.

And the piece most vendors bury is published in a pricing answer: onboarding and customer success are stated to be an extra fee, typically between two and four thousand dollars depending on package and scope. Held off the top band because every figure is qualified as a starting price, the top tier is custom, no billing terms, contract length, currency or minimum commitment is stated, and there is no self serve path anywhere, with all six buttons on the page routing to a demo request.

The rights exist on paper and the operational detail does not. The privacy policy grants a right to erasure and a right to receive a copy of personal data in a commonly used electronic format for transfer to another provider, names a route for exercising both through a named grievance officer, and states that access and deletion can also be reached through the product settings. A processing agreement is published.

What is missing is everything a departing customer would need: no export function is described in the product material, no post termination retention window is stated, no deletion timeline or confirmation artefact is offered, and retention is described only as being as long as necessary with a period that varies by data type.

The rights framing is also aimed at an individual data subject rather than at a departing corporate customer wanting its accumulated contact graph back, and those are different questions. Held at C rather than lower because governing terms, a processing agreement, a stated portability right and a named settings route all exist.

The product sends automated email sequences and publishes nothing at all about how. No warmup, no sender authentication guidance, no blocklist monitoring, no complaint or bounce threshold, no volume pacing, no sending window control, no placement testing and no reputation reporting were located.

The silence is more noticeable here than on a general purpose sequencer because the entire commercial argument rests on response rates from warm contacts, and inbox placement is the precondition for any of it. Two structural factors keep this at C rather than lower rather than any published control. Volume is inherently modest, with the entry tier expecting between one hundred fifty and five hundred surfaced leads a month, so this is not a high velocity sending profile.

And no provisioned sending infrastructure is sold, so a buyer appears to send from their own connected mailbox and inherits their own reputation rather than a pooled one, though the vendor never states this.

The segmentation is unusually concrete and it is measured against the right variable. Rather than a headcount or revenue band, the tiers are sized by the buyer's tracked contact base at ten thousand, forty thousand and eighty thousand and above, which is the actual driver of both value and cost on this product, and each band carries an expected lead output so a buyer can test whether they are the right size before contact.

Four buyer functions are addressed separately with distinct arguments for sales, marketing, customer success and revenue operations, and the customer success case around champion departure and renewal risk is developed rather than decorative. Held off the top band by a direct internal contradiction.

A pricing answer states that the product suits any size of team or even an individual user, and cites teams of two alongside teams of more than a hundred, which sits awkwardly against an entry tier priced at 850 dollars a month for a ten thousand contact base. An individual user does not hold ten thousand key customer contacts. Vendors reaching the top band on this axis publish a ceiling as well as a floor, and this one claims the whole range.