Benchmarks
Published measurements of the contact data providers on this market. Every provider is queried on the same list of profiles through its own API, on September 17 and 18, 2026 for the latest report, and every answer is scored against a reference that belongs to none of them. The results go online in full, segment by segment, including the ones where BlitzAPI comes second.
5 measures, the same 6 providers ranked on each one, strongest at the top
Does it return a person at all?
Out of 100 you send, how many come back usable?
When it answers, is the answer right?
Right company, whatever the title says?
separation not tested
How often does it name a job the person left?
separation not tested
BlitzAPI runs these tests and is one of the providers measured in them. The reference comes from none of them, the rules are fixed before the run, and the segments where each provider falls behind are published alongside the ones where it does well.
In each row below, the two bars and their gap are scored only on the contacts both providers returned, so coverage drops out of them and what is left is accuracy, on the same people. Which is why the Coverage column of the figure above is worth reading first: in this run BlitzAPI is third of 6 on coverage, behind Apollo and Prospeo. Each head to head page sets out, in order, the main measures side by side (accurate records per 100, coverage, accuracy, the wrong title rate and the stale employer rate), each counted on the whole list or on what each provider returned, with the count of published segment comparisons the other provider leads or ties; each provider's answers split into four verdicts; the pair scored on the contacts both returned; and how both hold up after a job change.
On the 3,081 contacts both returned
18.1 points apart, right employer and title.
Apollo answers more often: it returned a person for 96.8% of the full list against 90.4%.
Apollo was right where BlitzAPI was not on 108 of those 3,081 contacts.
Kept together, BlitzAPI first and Apollo on the misses: 86.9 accurate per 100 instead of 82.4, for 330 extra queries.
On the 2,287 contacts both returned
28.7 points apart, right employer and title.
Reach goes the other way here: BlitzAPI returned a person for 90.4% of the full list against 68.8%.
QuickEnrich was right where BlitzAPI was not on 18 of those 2,287 contacts.
Kept together, BlitzAPI first and QuickEnrich on the misses: 83.3 accurate per 100 instead of 82.4, for 330 extra queries.
On the 3,033 contacts both returned
33.4 points apart, right employer and title.
Prospeo answers more often: it returned a person for 94.9% of the full list against 90.4%.
Prospeo was right where BlitzAPI was not on 21 of those 3,033 contacts.
Kept together, BlitzAPI first and Prospeo on the misses: 84.2 accurate per 100 instead of 82.4, for 330 extra queries.
On the 2,730 contacts both returned
39.8 points apart, right employer and title.
Reach goes the other way here: BlitzAPI returned a person for 90.4% of the full list against 84.6%.
MoltSets was right where BlitzAPI was not on 34 of those 2,730 contacts.
Kept together, BlitzAPI first and MoltSets on the misses: 84.8 accurate per 100 instead of 82.4, for 330 extra queries.
On the 2,683 contacts both returned
52.4 points apart, right employer and title.
Reach goes the other way here: BlitzAPI returned a person for 90.4% of the full list against 81.1%.
GetLeads.io was right where BlitzAPI was not on 10 of those 2,683 contacts.
Kept together, BlitzAPI first and GetLeads.io on the misses: 83.4 accurate per 100 instead of 82.4, for 330 extra queries.
The full 6 by 6 grid, every provider against every other one, is in the report.
Not every run gets published. A report goes online when the population is large enough to separate providers and the protocol has not changed mid-flight. The six steps in full.
A new report roughly every month. One edition is online so far.
