Kaspr

A conventional contact database with a retrieval extension on top, and the vendor does not claim otherwise. Across the pricing page, the data page and the help centre the product is described in terms of credits, coverage and export, with no model, no generated copy and no scoring presented as a feature. Strip an AI label from this product and everything sellable remains, because there is no label to strip.

Nothing here is marketed as intelligence, so this is not a claim that fails a removal test but a product that never made one. A buyer wanting model driven research, message generation or account scoring is looking at the wrong tier of this vendor's group and should price the parent platform instead.

Nothing runs unattended, and the containment is numeric and published. Enrichment workflows and bulk file enrichment are launched by a person each time rather than scheduled or triggered, and the product takes no action toward anyone: it returns contact details and stops. What bounds a bad run is stated as hard figures per plan, covering launches per month and records per launch, so a misconfigured bulk job is capped by the plan rather than by an operator noticing.

The top plan removes those caps, which is where the containment argument weakens rather than where it strengthens. Ask what limits apply on the unlimited plan, and whether a bulk run can be halted and its credits reclaimed once started.

There is no model layer to disclose. The product retrieves stored contact records against a profile or a file and returns them, and no generated text, inference, ranking or scoring appears in the plan comparison, the data page or the help centre. Graded at the middle of the band with the scope stated rather than at the floor, because the floor asserts that a model exists and is undisclosed, and that is not what was found.

The matching step that resolves a profile to a record is the one place logic sits behind the result, and how a match is made and how confidence is judged are not described anywhere reached. Ask how a profile is matched to a stored record, and what happens when the match is wrong.

Coverage counts circulate without a measurement basis, and the outcome surface was not reached this pass. Figures of five hundred million business emails and telephone numbers and two hundred million profiles appear in vendor channel material rather than on the pages retrieved here, and no accuracy rate, match rate, refresh cadence or verification method accompanies them. A count of records held is a size claim and not an outcome.

The vendor publishes a customer stories section which was not retrieved on this pass, so this grade reflects what the commercial and data pages evidence rather than an established absence of case material. Ask for the match rate and the accuracy rate on your own territory, measured on a sample you supply, and the date the coverage figures were last recounted.

The product sends nothing, and the obligation it creates is pushed to the buyer in writing. What is supplied includes personal mobile numbers, which is the category that carries calling restrictions, and the terms state that where the vendor and the customer independently determine purposes the two are separate controllers, so the customer carries its own compliance burden as controller of what it does next.

The vendor ships one relevant control at every plan, an option to hide direct email addresses which it describes as available for compliance reasons. No do not call screening, suppression list or jurisdictional calling restriction is offered or described on any page reached, and the parent company's screening is the parent's rather than this product's. Ask whether any number supplied has been screened against a do not call register in your calling territories, and if not, who is expected to do it.

A European controller with the instruments published rather than promised. The operating entity is named with a Paris address in the terms, the supervisory authority is named as the French regulator with its complaint route given, and a processing agreement is published on the site rather than furnished on request.

The terms set out the separate controller relationship explicitly and enumerate the rights available, covering access, rectification, restriction, portability, erasure, objection and directions for data after death. A dedicated privacy address and a documented deletion request route are both published in the help centre.

It is held off the top band by retention, which is expressed only as the period necessary for the purpose with the factors that determine it described in the abstract, so no actual period is stated for any category of record. Ask for the retention period applied to a contact record after the last verification touch.

Three sourcing layers described, with the first party layer specified more concretely than most of this category manages. Public sources are given as legal registries and company websites, gathered by the vendor's own collection and through selected providers. The first party layer is the specific one: validation of an address or number when an inbound lead is enriched, when a customer record is checked under the terms of an agreement, at sign up, and from an inbound message.

Third party providers are covered by a stated diligence process and by agreements the vendor says permit compliant receipt and processing. What keeps it below the top band is that no provider is named at any layer, and the help centre directs anyone wanting to know the sources to ask for them, which makes the specific origin request gated rather than published. Ask for the provider list and the contractual basis on which each supplies European personal data.

The whole product runs on a professional network the vendor does not have a stated position with. The extension reads profiles, search results, groups and events, and the paid plans extend it across that network's sales and recruiting subscription products, all of it named plainly in the plan comparison rather than behind a euphemism, which is more candour than several vendors in this category offer.

What is absent is any conformance position: nothing on the pages reached states how access is obtained, whether the method is sanctioned, what happens to a customer whose account is restricted, or what the vendor's reading is of the network's terms. Extending across a paid subscription tier of the same network widens what a customer risks rather than narrowing it. Ask what happens to your subscription and your saved leads if the network restricts an account used with the extension.

A published commitment that customer supplied data does not become vendor inventory. The personal data charter states that business profiles and other information shared with the vendor by its users are not added to the database, which answers the question a data vendor's customers should be asking, namely whether the records they upload for enrichment are absorbed and then resold to the next buyer.

That commitment is architectural in effect and specific in wording rather than a general assurance. It sits below the top band on where it lives: the charter is a published policy document rather than a term of the agreement, and the processing agreement does not restate it. Ask for the non ingestion commitment to be written into the processing agreement, and for confirmation that it covers records uploaded for bulk enrichment as well as records revealed through the extension.

The people in the database are told they are in it, which is the strongest form this axis takes for a data vendor and is rare across this index. The vendor states it operates on an opt out basis and notifies individuals by email, explaining its processing and offering the opportunity to exercise rights including opting out. A standing removal route is published in the site footer and operated through a third party privacy service rather than through a support address.

This is the distinction that separates it from comparable extensions in this category, where the person whose mobile number is sold is never contacted at all. It is held below the top band because the practice is asserted on a marketing page with no coverage figure, no timing, and no statement of what proportion of the database has been notified or what happens when an address is not held. Ask when the notification is sent relative to a record entering the database, and what share of records have received one.

Nine destinations named with per plan availability published, and an interface a customer has to ask for. The comparison table names three customer record systems, a further one, two dialer products, two sending tools and a general automation connector, and marks which plans carry each, so a buyer can check their own stack before purchase rather than after.

The interface is the gap: it is listed on both paid plans and on the top plan, but marked available upon request at every one of them, with hourly and daily request ceilings published per plan. That is a restricted route rather than an absent one, and the restriction is the vendor's own choice about who gets programmatic access. No marketplace listing, webhook or public developer documentation was reached on either pass. Ask what qualifies an account for interface access and how long approval takes.

Jurisdiction is established, location is not. The operating company is French, gives a Paris address in its terms, and answers to the French supervisory authority, which tells a European buyer which legal regime governs the relationship and is more than many vendors in this category establish.

Nothing reached states where data is actually held: no hosting region, no processing location, no subprocessor list, no residency election and no transfer mechanism for the movement of data outside the European Economic Area, which matters here because the database is assembled partly from third party providers whose own locations are not given. A single tenant option and an on premises option are not offered and would not be expected for a product of this shape. Ask for the hosting region, the subprocessor list, and the transfer mechanism relied on for any provider outside the European Economic Area.

Two passes on separate routes located no security posture of the product's own. The site footer carries five legal documents and no security page among them, and the help centre's answer on the subject is a single sentence stating that robust measures protect stored data.

The processing agreement is the only place security commitments appear, and they are the statutory categories rather than implemented controls: encryption of transfers, confidentiality, integrity, availability and resilience of processing systems, and confidentiality undertakings from authorised personnel. No certification, examination report, audit period, auditor, penetration test, trust portal, hosting arrangement or enumerated technical control was found on either pass.

The parent company holds certifications and operates a trust site, and none of that is published on or claimed by this product, which is the finding rather than a substitute for one. Ask which of the parent's certifications cover this product by scope, and for the certificate naming it.

One of the more completely published commercial surfaces in this category, undercut by a page that disagrees with itself. Four plans are priced in euros, sterling and dollars at both monthly and annual rates, two of them buy through checkout without a sales conversation, a permanent free tier is priced at zero, and add on credits carry full rate cards giving the price per credit at six volume breaks across three credit types, which is the usage economics most vendors withhold entirely.

Against that, the same page names the fourth plan two different ways, states the free plan's monthly email credits as two different figures, and gives two different export allowances for each paid plan, one of them four times the other. The credits and the export limit are what meter the real bill, so the contradiction sits on the numbers a buyer would budget from. Ask which export allowance and which credit figures the contract will carry.

Getting out is documented and metered. Export to file and to connected systems is available on every plan including the free one, the allowance is published as a hard number per plan rather than described, and the help centre documents permanent deletion of both an account and an organisation with an explicit warning that saved leads, workflows and credits go with it and cannot be recovered.

Portability of the customer's own uploaded records is covered by the rights enumerated in the terms. What holds it at the middle of the band is that export is a metered resource: the enriched records a customer has already paid to reveal can only be taken out against a finite export allowance, so leaving consumes the same budget as working. A customer who has exhausted the allowance cannot extract what they bought until the period resets. Ask whether the export allowance is lifted on cancellation so that a departing customer can retrieve the full record set.

The product sends nothing, so the axis has no sending apparatus to examine. There is no mailbox connection, no warmup, no rotation, no throttling and no authentication configuration, because delivery happens in whichever sending tool the records are exported into. Graded at the middle of the band with that scope stated rather than at the floor, since the floor asserts that a sending product is undisciplined and this is not a sending product.

The one adjacent contribution is address verification: contact details are described as verified before supply, which affects the bounce rate a customer will see in whatever tool they send from, though no bounce or validity rate is published for any tier. Ask for the measured bounce rate on exported addresses and how recently each was validated.

Well defined on who it is for and undermined by a jurisdiction it excludes. Three buyer segments are addressed with their own pages, covering sales, recruitment and founders, and the commercial ladder matches the positioning: a free tier for one person, two self serve plans for small teams, and an annual plan with a five seat minimum above them. Coverage is stated as strongest across European contacts.

Sitting against that, the help centre states that California residents cannot log in to the product because of that state's privacy statute, which removes the largest state in the vendor's secondary market from the addressable set. The same statute is claimed as an alignment on all four plans on the pricing page and its badge sits in the footer, so the marketing surface and the support surface describe different market coverage. Ask whether the restriction extends to a company with California based users on a non California account.