QD vs Apollo
A database you export from
Apollo publishes an accuracy figure; we publish a guarantee with a replacement clause attached. Accuracy, verification method, bounce policy and price, each with its source.
Comparison
See how Qualified Deals compares.
Fourteen head-to-head comparisons, each built from the competitor's own published pages with a source and a date on every figure — then what this input actually costs across every way a team buys it.
Head to head
Fourteen comparisons, sourced and dated.
Databases you export from
Large stored datasets, sold by seat or by contract.
QD vs ZoomInfo
An enterprise contract
Both of us put people on the problem — theirs on the database, ours on your file. Accuracy, where each one’s researchers work, coverage and what a contract runs to.
QD vs Cognism
Strong where they say it is
Cognism calls itself EMEA-centric, and it is one of the sources we buy from. What each side checks, how far the scope reaches, and what a package is estimated to run to.
Lookup and capture tools
Per-seat tools that return one contact at a time, usually from LinkedIn.
QD vs Lusha
One contact at a time
A seat that reveals contacts credit by credit, against 750 verified in a single file. How volume works, how each is checked, and what a year costs.
QD vs RocketReach
A seat for the lookup
Both sides publish a rate card here. What RocketReach claims, what independent testing reports, and what a per-seat tool leaves your team to do afterwards.
QD vs LeadIQ
Capture, one contact at a time
A Chrome extension for the moment a rep is on a profile, against a finished list. Includes the one thing they do better than us, said plainly.
QD vs Kaspr
A lookup on the profile
A Chrome extension that reveals a contact while a rep is on their LinkedIn page, against a finished list. Their published card in three currencies, and what their own data page is scoped to.
QD vs Prospeo
A finder, and a claimed rate
They publish a higher accuracy figure than we do, and we do not dispute it. The page is about what stands behind each number — a measurement of a database, against a guarantee on your delivery.
QD vs SalesQL
More lookups than we deliver records
Their allowance is bigger than our delivery and costs less, and the page says so outright. The argument is that the number of lookups was never the constraint — which companies, and whether the person is still there, are.
Platforms you subscribe to
Sourcing bundled with sending, bought for a term.
QD vs Amplemarket
An annual term
A per-seat platform bought for a year, against one project that finishes. Commitment, verification, and what the first year costs either way.
QD vs Seamless.ai
A year of credits, quoted
Their paid tiers are annual credit packages priced on a call. The page credits what they do well — real-time search, an automatic credit refund — and asks what a refunded credit gets back.
QD vs UpLead
A guarantee much like ours
The closest comparison here. Both publish a number and attach a remedy to it — theirs returns a credit after the bounce, ours returns a re-verified record, and the check runs at a different point.
Waterfalls and workflows you build
Orchestration across other providers, operated by your team.
QD vs FullEnrich
A waterfall across 20+ sources
They hold no database at all — they query other people’s until one answers. What their find rate measures, what it does not, and how a credit meter compares with a fixed scope.
QD vs Clay
A workflow you build and staff
Clay orchestrates providers; we hand over the finished list. What each one is, who has to operate it, and what a workflow costs once it is running.
What clients say
One client, on the accuracy.
Our ground sales team was impressed with the latest and accurate information provided by Qualified Deals.
Stanley Suresh Joseph · Founder, Playway Books · India Annual cost
Eighteen ways to buy the same input.
| Provider | Type | Annual cost | Human verification | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZoomInfo | Enterprise platform | ₹12.5L – 42L | Varies | Deepest in North America; EMEA and APAC still growing. Price is quoted, not published. |
| Apollo.io | SMB to mid-market platform | ₹50K – 1.5L per user | No | Publishes 98% accuracy from automated checks. No bounce policy stated. |
| Lusha | Individual platform | ₹26K – 1.58L per user | No | Credit-metered per lookup. Per-plan credit counts are not published. |
| Clay | Enrichment platform | ₹1.7L – 4.5L | No | Credit-metered. The workflow is yours to build and keep running. |
| Amplemarket | Sales platform | ₹6L ($7,200) | No | Annual term from 2 seats. Sourcing and sending bundled together. |
| Cognism | EMEA-focused platform | $15K – $35K+ est. | Varies | Phone-verified mobiles. Publishes no rates; the figure is a third-party estimate. |
| RocketReach | Per-seat lookup tool | $396 – $2,100 per user | No | Per-seat lookups. Verification of the exported list stays with you. |
| UpLead | Credit-based platform | $888 – $1,788 per user | No | Publishes 95% accuracy and refunds the credit on a verified bounce. |
| LeadIQ | Capture extension | $1,800 – $2,400 | No | Built for rep-side capture. Publishes 85% global mobile match-rate. |
| Kaspr | LinkedIn extension | $588 – $1,188 per user | No | Credit-metered per seat. Publishes no accuracy figure; their data page is Europe-centred. |
| FullEnrich | Waterfall enrichment | $660 – $8,640 | No | Metered per result found — 10 credits a mobile against 1 an email. Publishes a find rate, not an accuracy rate. |
| Prospeo | Contact finder | Not published | No | Publishes 98% data accuracy with no remedy attached. Rates load from an app; none is citable. |
| SalesQL | LinkedIn email finder | $351 – $1,428 | No | Generous credit allowances; targeting and role-checking stay with you. Free tier carries no phone numbers. |
| Seamless.ai | Real-time search platform | Not published | No | Annual credit packages, quoted on request. Credit refunded on an invalid email, after delivery. |
| In-house SDR plus tools | DIY model | ₹8L – 15L | Varies | BD time goes on research rather than closing. |
| Global agencies | Full-service retainer | $5K – $12K per month | Yes | Outreach is bundled in, so you pay for what you may not need. |
| Qualified Deals — Pilot | One-time research project | ₹35,000 one-time | Yes | One-time scope. No retainer, no lock-in. |
| Qualified Deals — Scale | Monthly subscription | ₹7.2L (₹60K × 12) | Yes | Cancel any time after the three-month minimum. |
Cost figures come from publicly published pricing pages and industry benchmarks, re-checked against each vendor’s own pages on 17–18 August 2026, and Lusha’s again on 10 September 2026. Cognism publishes no rates at all, so its figure is a third-party estimate (SpendHound, 18 August 2026) rather than a price. ZoomInfo does not publish list prices either: its range is our own record of what a contract runs to, from Master Business Document §P.2 on 13 August 2026 — not a ZoomInfo quote, and not cross-checked against one, because there is no published figure to check it against. Your actual cost depends on user count, contract length and negotiated add-ons — usually above the floor of the published range. Our own estimate for a Clay workflow running at scale is ₹7.2L a year and upward once credit consumption is counted; that figure is ours, not a Clay list price.
A ZoomInfo Advanced contract costs ₹12.5L a year before add-ons. That is roughly 36 Pilots, or 17 months of a Scale subscription. The spend is on the platform, not on verified data.
What buyers ask first
Three trade-offs we do not make.
We need volume.
Verified, not voluminous
A list of 5,000 with a quarter of them wrong costs more than 750 that are right — in domain reputation, in rep hours, and in the meetings that never happen. We size the list to what can be verified, and we say the number before you buy.
What does it cost per month?
Fixed price, no retainer
Nothing per month. Each project is quoted whole, before it starts, and that is what you pay. No seat licences, no credits to forecast, no minimum spend, and nothing that renews unless you ask it to.
Five to seven days is slow.
The turnaround is the feature
A list you can buy in ninety seconds is a list nobody checked. The days are people reading company sites and profiles, and dating what they confirmed. That is the part you are buying.
FAQ
What buyers ask when they are comparing.
Which ZoomInfo alternative fits a small B2B team?
It depends what is actually failing. If ZoomInfo’s cost is the problem, a per-project research firm removes the seat licence entirely — a Pilot is ₹35,000 against a platform contract in the ₹12.5L–42L range. If the data quality is the problem, no platform switch fixes it, because the alternatives run the same automated verification. The distinction worth drawing is between renting a database and commissioning research.
Why is a platform cheaper per record but more expensive per campaign?
Because you pay for the whole database and use a fraction of it, then pay again in bounced sends and researcher time correcting rows. A platform priced per seat per year does not scale down to one project. We price the project.
Is human verification actually worth the difference?
Compare what backs each figure rather than the figures. Apollo publishes a 98% email accuracy rate, produced by automated checks, with no bounce policy attached to it (apollo.io, checked 17 August 2026). We target 92%+ deliverability and attach a clause: above an 8% hard-bounce rate we replace every bounced record free, re-verified, within 5 working days. A published rate costs the vendor nothing when it is wrong. Ours costs us the re-run.
What does building the list in-house cost?
Rarely less, once you count it properly: an SDR’s time at market salary, the platform subscriptions they still need, and the opportunity cost of research hours not spent selling. The comparison table on this page prices it out with the assumptions stated.
Are these competitor prices accurate?
They are floors, taken from publicly published pricing pages and industry benchmarks. A real contract with add-ons usually lands above them — ZoomInfo add-ons in particular can triple a contract. We publish the caveat rather than the flattering number.
What are you worse at than a platform?
Speed on demand and self-service. A platform gives you a list in minutes at 2am; we take 5–7 days from a confirmed brief and a person has to be involved. If you need instant access to a large database and can absorb the bounce rate, a platform is the right tool.
Book a project brief