FullEnrich runs a waterfall across twenty-plus providers, billed fairly, with a CSV and API-first design built for ops teams who want a straightforward enrichment engine without extra scaffolding around it. Surfe starts from the same premise and pulls ahead where it counts: twice as fast, and in a head-to-head find rate bake-off, Surfe easily wins; finding 65.7% of mobiles against FullEnrich's 57.9%.
Waterfall aside, the differences are profound. Whilst FullEnrich only enriches the lists a team already owns, Surfe offers far more: net-new search, buying signals, and lookalikes profiles, duplicate prevention, deep CRM integration, and seamless workflows across every platform where prospecting happens (WebApp, API, MCP, Chrome extension), none of which FullEnrich offers.
FullEnrich
Six situations where a front end changes what an enrichment engine can actually do, and where FullEnrich’s CSV-first design shows its limits.
An enrichment engine without somewhere for a rep to use it is still a CSV with better numbers.
FullEnrich lists Pipedrive as coming soon. Surfe’s integrations are live and bidirectional today.
FullEnrich enriches the lists a team already has. Surfe helps find the next ones too.
A CSV import can’t know what already exists in a CRM. Every overlap becomes a duplicate someone has to clean up.
An enriched file starts aging the moment it downloads. Surfe keeps watching afterward.
FullEnrich’s core use case doesn’t disappear with Surfe. The CSV and API enrichment run the same waterfall and validation as the extension.
FullEnrich isn’t the only enrichment engine worth a second look. See how Surfe stacks up elsewhere.
LeadIQ captures a contact fast and charges ten credits to guess at a phone number. Surfe found 94.9% of mobiles in its own benchmark and charges only when the number turns out to be real.
Kaspr reveals a European phone number and hopes it’s a mobile. Surfe found 94.9% of mobiles in its own benchmark, with every number checked for line type before a rep dials.
Cognism built its name on EMEA data. Surfe found 90.6% of EMEA emails in the same benchmark, against Cognism’s 67.7%.
Lusha built a database of cheap reveals. Surfe built one that’s actually validated: 89.4% of emails found, against Lusha’s 71.6%.
ZoomInfo has the name everyone knows. Surfe has the data breadth and reliability everyone needs.
Apollos 56% mobile find rate vs Surfes 94%. Which one is your pipeline built on?
%201%20(1)%20(1).avif)
.avif)
