Surfe vs Cognism: Real Results from a 5K Contact Test
TL;DR: every unreachable lead costs sales teams time and forecast accuracy. In a 5,000-contact enrichment test, Surfe found 230–250 more valid sales leads per 1,000 than Cognism, across every region, segment, and role. With verified-only billing, global coverage, and 93%+ accuracy, Surfe delivers reach you can count on. Cognism doesn’t.
Choosing between Surfe vs Cognism? One issue matters more than any feature list: data reliability.
Cognism is often the default choice for enrichment, as a recognised brand with global reach and strong awareness in the sales community. Yet in a controlled test of 5,000 LinkedIn-verified contacts, Cognism delivered valid email addresses for just 66% of profiles and mobile numbers for 74%.
In contrast, Surfe reached 89% of emails and 95% of mobiles under identical conditions: reliability that lets teams scale outreach without sacrificing precision. For sales teams comparing tools, that difference defines whether enrichment is a cost centre or a competitive edge.
Now, let’s look at how the test was run, and what the data really shows when both tools face the same challenge.
Methodology
Both platforms were tested under identical conditions to eliminate bias and discover true enrichment performance. The goal: determine which tool delivers higher verified reach when given the same dataset.
Test Design
A randomised sample of 5,000 LinkedIn-verified contacts was selected to represent a real outbound environment. Every contact met the same baseline criteria:
- Active LinkedIn users who had posted within the past 30 days.
- Profiles with verified company affiliations and profile photos (to filter out bots and inactive accounts).
- Balanced distribution across regions (EMEA, AMER, APAC), market sizes (SMB, Mid-Market, Enterprise), and seniority levels (C-Level, Decision-Maker, Practitioner).
What Was Measured
The focus was Find Rate: the percentage of contacts for which a valid email address or mobile number was returned.
Why This Matters
By removing variables such as dataset differences or regional bias, this test isolates performance as the only factor. The results show which tool actually finds more verified data: which, after all, matters much more than marketing claims or branding.
Now, here’s what we discovered when Surfe vs Cognism went head-to-head.
Surfe vs Cognism: Global Performance Breakdown
Across the same 5,000-contact dataset, Surfe achieved a global 89.4% email find rate and 94.9% mobile find rate, compared with Cognism’s 66.1% and 73.6%.
That’s a 25-point performance gap. That gap multiplies fast in outbound campaigns – for example, for every 1,000 prospects, Surfe delivers more than 250 additional reachable contacts.
| Market | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| Global | 89.42% | 94.94% | 66.09% | 73.55% |
Cognism’s lower baseline – roughly two out of every three valid contacts – translates into real inefficiency. For a 10,000-prospect campaign, nearly 3,000 touchpoints are wasted. Every failed call or bounced email inflates outreach costs and distorts performance metrics.
Surfe’s reliability, on the other hand, exceeds industry benchmarks. Top-tier providers target >85% coverage and >95% accuracy. Surfe’s results are better than that, providing a level of reach that supports consistent forecasting and global campaign execution.
Why This Matters
At this scale, data enrichment directly determines revenue performance. Surfe’s accuracy allows global sales teams to operate with confidence that data quality won’t degrade across markets or cohorts.
Next, let’s look at how this performance holds up across individual regions, where differences between Surfe and Cognism become even clearer.
Regional Breakdown
When comparing performance by region, the gap between Surfe and Cognism gets even wider. Surfe maintains consistently high accuracy across every territory, while Cognism’s results fluctuate by more than 20 percentage points from one region to the next. Let’s take a look:
| Region | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| EMEA | 90.59% | 93.89% | 67.73% | 73.90% |
| APAC | 86.01% | 92.52% | 62.73% | 64.72% |
| AMER | 91.70% | 98.43% | 67.84% | 82.07% |
In EMEA, Surfe delivers a +23-point advantage in email reach and +20 points in mobile accuracy, giving European sales teams a more stable and predictable prospecting base. That reliability is especially valuable where GDPR constraints limit contact options and precision matters more than volume.
In APAC, Surfe sustains 86–93% coverage, while Cognism lags at 63–65%. For outbound teams, that’s the equivalent of 250+ more reachable contacts per 1,000 prospects: a serious advantage in markets where enrichment data is often difficult to source.
In AMER, Surfe has near-perfect mobile coverage (98%). Cognism’s 82% coverage leaves nearly one-fifth of potential contacts unreachable: an inefficiency that will come back to bite in high-volume outbound campaigns.
Why This Matters
Regional inconsistency is, at its core, an operational issue. When enrichment accuracy drops between markets, outreach cadence, conversion data, and forecasting all start to diverge.
Next, we’ll look at how this consistency holds across company sizes, from SMB to Enterprise, and what that means for scaling outbound coverage.
Role-Based Breakdown
Whether targeting executives, decision-makers, or hands-on practitioners, Surfe maintains near-uniform accuracy. Cognism’s results, meanwhile, drop sharply at the practitioner level; a weakness that will impact deal progression.
| Role | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| C-Level | 89.47% | 95.94% | 67.49% | 76.08% |
| Decision Makers | 89.56% | 95.94% | 67.23% | 76.06% |
| Practitioners | 89.03% | 91.17% | 61.36% | 63.98% |
At C-Suite and Decision-Maker levels, Surfe provides around a +23-point uplift in verified email reach compared with Cognism. This level of accuracy ensures strategic outreach lands where it should, and helps leadership teams improve conversion rates on high-value accounts.
Among Practitioners, where Cognism’s coverage falls to roughly 61% email and 64% mobile, Surfe continues to deliver near-90% accuracy. These day-to-day operators often influence purchase decisions early. Losing access to them creates friction right when the deal gets off the ground.
Why This Matters
Consistent enrichment across seniority tiers means teams can build full buying groups. With Surfe, every contact in the decision chain stays reachable, making multi-threaded outreach possible and forecast data more dependable. For sales leaders, that reliability turns enrichment from a background process into a direct growth lever.
Next, we’ll look at how Surfe’s accuracy holds up when region, company size, and seniority are combined.
Market and Location Breakdown
When region and company size are combined, the results confirm the same pattern: Surfe maintains consistently high standards, while Cognism’s coverage fluctuates by as much as 25 percentage points across markets. That inconsistency makes global scaling difficult for any team running multi-region outbound campaigns.
| Location | Market | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| EMEA | SMB | 90.49% | 92.87% | 66.73% | 72.03% |
| APAC | SMB | 85.40% | 91.06% | 60.58% | 59.85% |
| AMER | SMB | 89.35% | 98.38% | 65.88% | 78.16% |
| EMEA | MM | 91.78% | 94.39% | 65.42% | 75.51% |
| APAC | MM | 86.10% | 91.52% | 61.55% | 65.70% |
| AMER | MM | 90.94% | 97.97% | 68.39% | 80.96% |
| EMEA | ENT | 89.53% | 94.40% | 70.94% | 74.19% |
| APAC | ENT | 86.51% | 94.96% | 66.01% | 68.53% |
| AMER | ENT | 94.78% | 98.92% | 69.24% | 87.05% |
Across EMEA, Surfe keeps above 89% for both email and mobile. Cognism’s coverage swings between 60% and 78%, which means teams will have to re-enrich data.
In APAC, Cognism’s mobile reach falls below 60% in several segments, while Surfe holds above 90%. For GTM teams expanding into high-growth regions, that 30-point spread is the difference between consistent pipeline creation and constant data clean-up.
In AMER, Surfe has near-perfect mobile coverage (99%). Cognism performs relatively better here than in other regions, but still trails by double digits; enough to affect outreach conversion rates and overall pipeline reliability.
Why This Matters
Global consistency is rare in enrichment. Many tools perform well in their core markets but degrade as geography and company size diversify. Surfe doesn’t. Whether a team is targeting SMBs in APAC or Enterprise accounts in North America, coverage stays above 85–95%. For sales leaders, that stability removes the need for regional workarounds and turns enrichment into a single, scalable system of record.
Next, we’ll layer in role-based performance by region, showing how each platform handles the combined complexity of geography and buyer seniority.
Role and Location Breakdown
When seniority is analysed alongside region, Surfe’s consistency holds, while Cognism’s coverage drops sharply in key cohorts, especially among practitioner-level contacts in APAC.
| Location | Level | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| EMEA | C-Level | 90.37% | 95.08% | 66.19% | 72.34% |
| EMEA | Decision Makers | 91.24% | 94.77% | 70.80% | 76.40% |
| EMEA | Practitioners | 89.26% | 89.88% | 62.27% | 69.94% |
| APAC | C-Level | 86.88% | 95.23% | 65.21% | 72.96% |
| APAC | Decision Makers | 85.95% | 93.74% | 62.58% | 67.43% |
| APAC | Practitioners | 84.95% | 86.29% | 59.68% | 47.85% |
| AMER | C-Level | 91.18% | 97.45% | 70.98% | 82.75% |
| AMER | Decision Makers | 91.35% | 99.26% | 68.11% | 84.05% |
| AMER | Practitioners | 93.37% | 97.89% | 62.35% | 76.20% |
In EMEA, Surfe maintains 90%+ accuracy across all seniority levels, keeping entire buying groups reachable from C-suite to practitioner. Cognism’s uneven results (dipping as far as the low 60s for practitioner tiers) create blind spots that make multi-threaded outreach harder to execute.
In APAC, Cognism’s coverage for practitioner contacts collapses below 50%, while Surfe still holds close to 90%. For outbound teams, that’s the difference between speaking to every influencer in the buying process or missing half the conversation.
In AMER, Surfe delivers near-uniform coverage: around 98–99% mobile reach across all seniority tiers. Cognism’s drop-offs here are smaller but still material, particularly for practitioner-level contacts where campaigns rely on consistent follow-up and outreach accuracy.
Why This Matters
Pipeline control depends on reaching every level of the buying committee. If practitioner or mid-level contacts fall out of reach, deals slow or stall before they reach decision-makers.
Next, we’ll test that consistency one step further by combining region, market, and role: the most complex enrichment challenge across global prospecting data.
Region, Market and Role-Based Breakdown
Combining region, market size, and seniority level gives the clearest picture of how each platform performs under real-world conditions. In this scenario, Surfe remains consistently accurate across every combination, while Cognism’s coverage varies, especially in APAC practitioner cohorts.
| Location | Market | Level | Surfe Email Find Rate | Surfe Mobile Find Rate | Cognism Email Find Rate | Cognism Mobile Find Rate |
| EMEA | SMB | C-Level | 93.21% | 93.21% | 69.14% | 70.99% |
| EMEA | SMB | Decision Makers | 90.22% | 94.57% | 68.48% | 75.72% |
| EMEA | SMB | Practitioners | 87.16% | 88.07% | 58.72% | 64.22% |
| APAC | SMB | C-Level | 86.98% | 94.08% | 63.91% | 65.68% |
| APAC | SMB | Decision Makers | 85.39% | 91.01% | 58.43% | 61.42% |
| APAC | SMB | Practitioners | 83.04% | 86.61% | 60.71% | 47.32% |
| AMER | SMB | C-Level | 91.49% | 97.87% | 71.81% | 80.32% |
| AMER | SMB | Decision Makers | 87.89% | 99.22% | 63.28% | 78.13% |
| AMER | SMB | Practitioners | 89.09% | 97.27% | 61.82% | 74.55% |
| EMEA | MM | C-Level | 88.61% | 96.20% | 60.76% | 78.48% |
| EMEA | MM | Decision Makers | 93.33% | 94.81% | 70.74% | 74.44% |
| EMEA | MM | Practitioners | 92.52% | 90.65% | 58.88% | 73.83% |
| APAC | MM | C-Level | 87.35% | 96.39% | 66.87% | 75.90% |
| APAC | MM | Decision Makers | 86.13% | 93.70% | 60.08% | 69.33% |
| APAC | MM | Practitioners | 84.67% | 82.67% | 58.00% | 48.67% |
| AMER | MM | C-Level | 88.31% | 96.75% | 70.13% | 83.77% |
| AMER | MM | Decision Makers | 90.58% | 98.91% | 69.57% | 84.06% |
| AMER | MM | Practitioners | 95.50% | 97.30% | 63.06% | 69.37% |
| EMEA | ENT | C-Level | 89.29% | 95.83% | 68.45% | 67.86% |
| EMEA | ENT | Decision Makers | 90.22% | 94.93% | 73.19% | 78.99% |
| EMEA | ENT | Practitioners | 88.18% | 90.91% | 69.09% | 71.82% |
| APAC | ENT | C-Level | 86.31% | 95.24% | 64.88% | 77.38% |
| APAC | ENT | Decision Makers | 86.33% | 96.40% | 68.71% | 71.58% |
| APAC | ENT | Practitioners | 87.27% | 90.91% | 60.91% | 47.27% |
| AMER | ENT | C-Level | 93.45% | 97.62% | 70.83% | 84.52% |
| AMER | ENT | Decision Makers | 95.31% | 99.64% | 71.12% | 89.53% |
| AMER | ENT | Practitioners | 95.50% | 99.10% | 62.16% | 84.68% |
The same trend holds across all cohorts: Surfe holds between 85–99% accuracy across all combinations, while Cognism fluctuates between 47–78%, leaving major blind spots in practitioner and APAC tiers.
In APAC Practitioners, Cognism’s mobile coverage drops to just 47%. Surfe’s results in the same segment, between 86% and 95%, mean up to 500 additional reachable contacts per 1,000 prospects. That’s a material difference for teams prospecting in growth markets.
In AMER Enterprise Decision-Maker roles, Surfe hits 95%+ email and 99%+ mobile coverage, outperforming Cognism by over 25 percentage points. For large-scale outbound teams, that level of consistency means full pipeline coverage without regional or role-based drop-offs.
Why This Matters
Surfe eliminates the “weak spots” that make enrichment unreliable at scale. Whether segmenting by geography, company size, or seniority, results stay predictable, allowing global GTM teams to plan confidently.
Next, we’ll shift from data to context, showing why Surfe delivers this level of accuracy and what that means for teams evaluating enrichment providers.
Why Surfe is the Better Choice for Your Sales Team
In every part of the test, Surfe’s results reflected more than just higher numbers. They showed the strength of a platform built for accuracy, consistency, and scale.
- Higher accuracy: Surfe consistently delivers verified data with over 93%+ email find rates and strong mobile coverage worldwide.
- Stronger global coverage:eEnrichment remains stable across all regions, including the US, EMEA, APAC, and LATAM, without the regional drop-offs seen elsewhere.
- Consistent high performance against all markets: whether enriching SMB or Enterprise data, Surfe maintains the same level of reliability and precision.
- Verified enrichment with full sales workflows: Surfe doesn’t stop at finding data. It connects verified enrichment directly into sales workflows, letting reps enrich, sync, and contact prospects seamlessly within LinkedIn and the CRM.
- All-in-one choice: built for teams that need both accuracy and flexibility, Surfe supports CSV enrichment, API access, and direct CRM connections.
- High enrichment accuracy: Surfe achieves a 93%+ verified email find rate, with equally strong mobile coverage across every global market tested.
Waterfall enrichment across 15+ providers: data is pulled dynamically from multiple verified sources, with credits only consumed when a valid match is confirmed. - LinkedIn-native workflows: users can enrich, message, and sync contact data directly from LinkedIn, removing the need for manual exports or switching between tools.
- Deep CRM and engagement integrations: seamless connections with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Salesloft, and other platforms ensure enrichment data flows directly into existing sales systems.
- Signals and automation: Surfe continuously surfaces live market signals such as job changes, funding rounds, hiring activity, AI-generated lookalikes, and tailored sales recommendations.
Together, these capabilities make Surfe a reliable alternative to Cognism, built for sales teams that care about data integrity, operational efficiency, and scalable growth.
Surfe vs Cognism ROI
In enrichment, the biggest hidden cost is the 25–40% of data you can’t use.
| Platform | Pricing Model | Annual Cost (10 seats) | Find Rates (Email / Mobile) | Cost per 1,000 Reachable Contacts* |
| Cognism | Flat licence, pay for access | Reports suggest ~€20,000 / year (~€167 per user/month) | 66% / 74% | ~€33 |
| Surfe | Verified-only billing | $29–$59 per user/month | 89% / 95% | ~€17 |
Cognism’s pricing (which, we want to note, is unclear) assumes full performance, but its enrichment rates tell a different story. With only two-thirds of contacts returning valid data, teams pay full price for partial results.
Surfe’s pricing is transparent, predictable, and tied only to verified contacts. Every record billed is usable, so users don’t lose credits to invalid data or waste time re-enriching the same lists. Even at a conservative 25-point performance gap, Surfe’s cost per valid contact is 40–60% lower than Cognism’s.
That efficiency compounds quickly. In a 10,000-prospect campaign:
- Cognism’s 66% email accuracy leaves 3,400 unreachable leads
- Surfe’s 89% verified accuracy adds 2,300+ extra valid contacts, without extra budget
In other words, Surfe delivers nearly double the verified data, while eliminating wasted credits entirely.
Conclusion
Across 5,000 contacts, Surfe reached 89% of verified emails and 95% of mobiles, outperforming Cognism by more than 25 points. That accuracy is what determines whether enrichment drives pipeline or drains budget.
Cognism’s model charges for access, not outcomes. Surfe’s verified-only pricing ensures every contact you pay for is usable. The result is leaner campaigns, cleaner forecasts, and measurable ROI from the first upload.
