FullEnrich vs Lusha: Data Accuracy, Coverage, and Pricing Compared

TL;DR: Many teams choose FullEnrich for its reliable enrichment and predictable costs, while others lean on Lusha for quicker prospecting and built-in lead discovery. FullEnrich leans toward accuracy, Lusha toward speed. Neither covers both ends fully , which is where Surfe comes in. Surfe combines the strengths of each – verified data enrichment, global coverage, and LinkedIn-native workflows – so leaders can forecast with confidence and reps can focus on selling.

Pipeline reliability depends on two things: the accuracy of enrichment data and the efficiency of prospecting workflows. If either is missing, forecasts become shaky and reps spend more time correcting mistakes and inching through workflows than building revenue. That’s why many teams end up evaluating FullEnrich and Lusha: two popular options designed to close these gaps in different ways.

FullEnrich focuses on verified enrichment at scale, giving leadership confidence in the quality of their data but leaving workflows largely manual. Lusha blends enrichment with prospecting tools, helping SDRs move faster, but its data coverage and consistency can vary.

FullEnrich produces cleaner lists but slows down SDRs. Lusha speeds up prospecting but leaves leadership second-guessing the numbers.

An alternative option is Surfe. By combining 93%+ verified enrichment accuracy with global coverage and LinkedIn-native workflows, Surfe removes the need to choose between accuracy and efficiency. Leadership gains cleaner sales lists and more predictable forecasts, while reps spend less time on admin and more time in conversations that move things forward.

In this article, we’ll compare FullEnrich and Lusha across accuracy, coverage, workflows, and pricing, and introduce Surfe as a third option built for teams that want both reliability and scale.

Methodology

To judge how FullEnrich and Lusha really perform, we ran a controlled test. The goal was to see which provider delivers usable data that teams can trust.

The Test

To make a fair comparison, we tested both FullEnrich and Lusha against the same dataset. A sample of 5,000 contacts was enriched consistently across providers, covering a mix of geographies, industries, and company sizes to reflect real-world prospecting scenarios.

How We Measured

Performance was measured on two fronts:

• Find rate: the percentage of contacts where an email or mobile was found.
• Quality: the percentage of those results that proved accurate and deliverable.

Why This Matters

A high find rate looks good in theory, but without accuracy, it inflates pipeline numbers and misleads forecasts. If a provider uses pattern recognition to guess email addresses (for example, [email protected]), then its find rates will be high – but a guessed email address isn’t the same as a verified email address.

Mobile phone numbers can’t be guessed via pattern recognition, so find rates are often naturally lower.

Performance and Coverage

Strong enrichment performance gives sales leaders confidence that forecasts reflect real opportunities, while freeing reps from working around poor data. With cleaner data and broader coverage, budgets aren’t wasted on unreachable contacts, and teams can spend more time on the activities that matter.

Here’s how FullEnrich and Lusha stack up on find rate and quality, across email addresses and mobile phone numbers:

FullEnrich

Strengths: email find rates reach 80–85% with quality around 90%, making it one of the more reliable options for verified enrichment. Mobile find rates sit at 70–75% with ~65% accuracy. Credits are only consumed on verified matches, so leadership can forecast with more confidence and control spend.

Limitations: coverage is strongest in North America, India, and EMEA. Teams prospecting outside those regions may see slower list growth and gaps in contact availability. For BDRs, the lack of built-in prospecting tools means more manual work before outreach can even begin.

Best for: leadership teams that prioritize forecast accuracy and predictable enrichment costs, especially when working from large, existing contact lists.

Lusha

Strengths: offers ~70% email find rate and ~70% quality, with mobile accuracy around 70%. Coverage is solid in the USA, India, and France, and decent across Europe. Its daily-refreshed database helps SDRs access leads quickly, especially in core markets.

Limitations: mobile find rates average ~44%, leaving gaps in the channel most likely to convert. Crowdsourced data can be inconsistent across niche ICPs or enterprise accounts, leading leadership to question pipeline reliability.

Best for: teams that want faster list-building in core regions and value lightweight prospecting tools, even if it means accepting more variability in data quality.

How to Decide

Choose FullEnrich if forecast accuracy is non-negotiable. Verified matches protect pipeline reliability and keep budgets under control, though reps may face slower list growth in regions outside North America, India, and EMEA.

Choose Lusha if speed and prospecting convenience come first. Its Chrome extension and refreshed database help SDRs build lists quickly in core regions, but leaders should weigh the risk of inconsistent data quality when forecasting.

Workflows and Integrations

The way enrichment connects to daily workflows is just as important as the data itself. If enrichment sits outside core tools, reps spend hours trying to export CSVs and patch CRMs, leaving leaders with inconsistent data that undermines forecast reliability. Well-designed workflows reduce manual effort, improve CRM hygiene, and let teams focus on building pipeline.

FullEnrich

Strengths: bulk enrichment via CSV (up to 100k contacts) and API integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, plus automation platforms like Zapier, Make, Clay, and n8n.

Limitations: the tool is enrichment-only, with no signals, no company search, and no LinkedIn extension.

Best for: companies with large contact datasets that are prepared to manage workflows manually and need accurate enrichment pushed into the CRM at scale.

Lusha

Strengths: offers a Chrome extension for enrichment across the web and LinkedIn, plus integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho, Pipedrive, Dynamics, Outreach, Salesloft, and Bullhorn. AI-powered Flex Search allows natural-language ICP queries, and AI-recommended lists help reps prospect faster.

Limitations: its prospecting features exist but are fairly lightweight, and other tools in the market offer more depth if that’s the primary need.

Best for: teams that want quick, accessible enrichment and basic prospecting support in one place, but don’t need advanced search or workflow depth.

How to Decide 

Choose FullEnrich if leadership values predictable enrichment at scale via CSV/API, and the team is prepared to handle manual workflows.

Choose Lusha if you want faster prospecting through a Chrome extension and basic AI-powered search, and can accept that its workflow depth is lighter than dedicated prospecting tools.

Signals & Automation

Signals and automation help teams decide where to focus their time. For leaders, they offer visibility into which accounts are worth pursuing; for reps, they reduce guesswork and cut back on manual tasks.

FullEnrich

Strengths: focuses entirely on enrichment, which helps keep costs lower.

Limitations: no intent data, signals, or scoring. For leadership, that means no visibility into buying intent, and for reps, prospecting priorities remain unclear.

Best for: teams that only want accurate enrichment and are comfortable operating without signals or automation.

Lusha

Strengths: includes Bombora Company Surge intent signals, AI Flex Search, and account recommendations, which provide basic prioritization support.

Limitations: signals aren’t deeply integrated into CRM or engagement tools, so leadership has limited oversight on how they translate into pipeline results.

Best for: SDR teams who want lightweight intent data and prioritization built into their prospecting flow.

How to Decide

Choose FullEnrich if cost control and enrichment accuracy are the only priorities, and you’re willing to work without buying signals.

Choose Lusha if you want lightweight prioritization features included in your prospecting tools, but can accept limited visibility into how those signals impact pipeline.

Pricing and Credits

If enrichment is tied to verified results, budgets stretch further and forecasts stay clean. If mobile numbers are affordable, SDRs can lean into the channel that converts best. The right balance matters, because paying for unreachable data or pricing reps out of mobile outreach harms the entire sales motion.

FullEnrich vs Lusha Pricing At A Glance

FullEnrich

Strengths: pricing is built around verified-only matches, which means teams only pay for usable data. This protects budgets from being eaten up by inaccurate data and gives leadership more confidence in their forecasts.

Limitations: mobile numbers cost 10 credits each, making the channel prohibitively expensive for many.

Best for: teams that want predictable, quality-first enrichment and don’t rely heavily on mobile outreach.

Lusha

Strengths: Entry-level pricing is competitive, and mobile numbers cost just 5 credits, making phone outreach more accessible for SDRs.

Limitations: Credits are consumed whether data is verified or not, so teams may end up paying for leads that never connect – raising the true cost per conversation.

Best for: teams that prioritize low upfront costs and heavy mobile use, and are prepared to absorb more variability in data quality.

ROI

The sticker price rarely reflects the true cost of enrichment. Credits that burn on unverified data can increase spend, while steep credit costs for mobiles shouldn’t be ignored. Tools that balance verified enrichment with affordable access to mobiles give both leaders and reps more value for every credit used.

How to Decide

Choose FullEnrich if your priority is cost predictability and data quality, even if it limits mobile outreach.

Choose Lusha if lower entry costs and affordable mobile credits outweigh the risk of paying for data that doesn’t connect.

Who Should Choose What

Choosing between FullEnrich and Lusha comes down to whether your team values data accuracy above all else, or faster prospecting and lower upfront costs.

FullEnrich is Best For:

• Teams working with large, existing lists (CRM exports, CSVs) that need predictable enrichment costs tied to verified results.
• Companies where forecast accuracy is non-negotiable and leadership wants confidence that pipeline data reflects real opportunities.
• Sales orgs that are comfortable managing workflows manually and don’t need prospecting or intent signals built in.
  

Lusha is Best For:

• Cost-sensitive teams that want to build new lists quickly, particularly in core regions like the USA, India, and France.
• SDR teams that benefit from lightweight prospecting tools and intent signals built directly into their workflows.
• Companies that prioritize speed and volume, even if it means accepting more variability in data quality.

Surfe: The Alternative to FullEnrich and Lusha

After weighing the strengths and limits of FullEnrich and Lusha, many teams find the real need is for an enrichment platform that does more than one job well. Surfe brings data accuracy together with the daily workflows and automation sales teams rely on, so enrichment isn’t handled in isolation but as part of the entire revenue process.

• Verified enrichment with global coverage: Surfe delivers a 93%+ email find rate through waterfall enrichment across 15+ premium providers, with strong mobile coverage in the US, EMEA, APAC, and LATAM.
• Credits only consumed on verified matches: teams don’t pay for unreachable data, which keeps budgets tied to usable contacts.
• LinkedIn-native workflows: enrichment, CRM sync, and message logging happen directly inside LinkedIn, reducing manual work and keeping CRM records accurate.
• Deep CRM and engagement integrations: Surfe connects bi-directionally with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Copper, and Dynamics, as well as platforms like Salesloft and Outreach, ensuring alignment across tools.
• Signals and automation: users receive daily job-change alerts, funding round updates, hiring activity signals, AI lookalike recommendations, and other prioritization cues to guide outreach.

Why teams choose Surfe: Surfe closes the gaps left by enrichment-only tools like FullEnrich and prospecting-first platforms like Lusha, combining verified enrichment, global coverage, LinkedIn-native workflows, and automation in one place.

FullEnrich vs Lusha: Final Thoughts

Enrichment platforms can look interchangeable in a demo. The differences show up when bounced emails and missed targets pile into a forecast. FullEnrich is a safe pick when verified enrichment at scale matters most. Lusha is appealing if speed and lower upfront costs take priority. Surfe stands out for teams that don’t want to trade one for the other, combining accuracy, coverage, and daily workflows in one platform.