Ask which sales intelligence software has the best US data and every vendor will give you a percentage. Eighty seven. Ninety one. Ninety five. Ninety eight. We checked five providers, Lusha, ZoomInfo, Apollo, Cognism and UpLead, on what they publish about US data accuracy and coverage. Four of the five publish a figure without the sample, the date or the definition behind it. So does Lusha, on its data page. What Lusha publishes that the others do not is a measured decay study, 148,000 records with method and date, and a US contact count at country level. This post compares what each vendor states, and what each one lets you check.
TL;DR
- What it is: A comparison of five B2B data providers on published US data accuracy, coverage and refresh figures, evaluated on whether the figure comes with a method you can verify.
- The figures are close together: ZoomInfo publishes 96% email and 87% mobile hit rates, Apollo 91% on verified emails, UpLead a 95% guarantee on email, Cognism 98% on its phone verified subset. None of the four publishes the sample, the date or the hit definition behind the number.
- Where Lusha differs: Lusha states 98% email, 85% US and 86% global phone accuracy, refreshed daily, the same way the other four state theirs. What it publishes that they don’t: a measured decay study (148,000 records, 12.25% annual role change among US sales leaders, September 2026, method on the page) and a US contact count, 87.8M+, inside a country by country breakdown.
- Coverage is a different question: ZoomInfo publishes a North America count, 157.8M+ contacts. Lusha publishes a US count, 87.8M+, inside a country by country breakdown. Apollo, Cognism and UpLead publish global totals only.
- What actually goes stale: Lusha’s decay measurement shows what no accuracy percentage captures: contact details outlast job titles. About 1% of senior US sales contacts change roles every month.
How we evaluated
- Published figures only, from the provider’s own site, data page or help center, not from reviews or user reports. Vendor pages checked September 13, 2026; Lusha figures updated October 6, 2026. Where a vendor publishes no figure for a row, the table says Not stated as of that date.
- Method behind the figure: sample size, test date, what counted as a hit, and whether a confidence range is given.
- Vendors measure different things. Apollo’s figure is deliverability of emails it marked verified. ZoomInfo labels its figures hit rates. UpLead and Cognism state accuracy. Lusha states accuracy on its data page. Each figure is shown as the vendor states it, with no conversion between them.
- Phone stated separately from email, because the two behave differently and a single “accuracy” figure usually means email.
- US coverage, stated as a US or regional number rather than a global total.
- Decay or refresh, whether the provider publishes how fast its own records go stale, or a refresh cadence.
Quick comparison
| Lusha | ZoomInfo | Apollo | Cognism | UpLead | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Published figure, as the vendor states it | 98% email, 85% US and 86% global phone, refreshed daily | 96% email, 87% mobile hit rates | 91% deliverability on verified emails | 98% accuracy on phone verified subset | 95% accuracy guarantee on email |
| Sample size and test date published | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated | Not stated |
| Mobile phone figure stated separately | 86% global, 85% US | 87% hit rate | Not stated | 98% on the verified subset only | Not covered by guarantee |
| US or regional contact count published | US, 87.8M+ (country level) | North America, 157.8M+ (regional) | Global total only | Not stated, by its own FAQ | Global total only |
| Own decay rate measured and published | Yes, 12.25% a year, 148,000 records, September 2026 | 15 to 20M job changes a month processed, no rate | Not stated | Refresh cadence stated, no rate | Not stated |
1. Lusha
Lusha states its accuracy figures the way the other four do: 98% email, 85% US and 86% global phone, refreshed daily, on its data page, without a described test behind them. Two things it publishes that the others do not. First, a measured decay study: 148,000 records tracked over two years, 12.25% of US sales leaders changing roles in twelve months and 25.67% in twenty four, about 1% a month, with the method and the segments on the page. Second, a US contact count, 87.8M+, inside a country by country breakdown. Lusha also ran a 322 contact US pilot in July 2026; it is published with a note that a larger re-run is in progress, and this post does not rely on it.
The decay study answers a question a percentage cannot: what goes stale. Contact details outlast job titles. Where a record is wrong, it is far more often the role and the employer than the email or the phone, which is why the check to build into outreach is on title, not on number.
On coverage, Lusha publishes a US count, 87.8M+ contacts, inside a country by country breakdown on its data page. ZoomInfo publishes regional counts. The other three publish global totals only.
Pros
- Measured decay study published with sample, method and date
- Accuracy stated separately for US and global phone, with a daily refresh cadence
- US contact count published at country level, not only a global or regional total
- Free plan, no credit card required, so you can test on your own list
Cons
- Total contact volume trails ZoomInfo, Apollo and Cognism
- Accuracy figures are stated, not yet backed by a published sample test; a re-run of the July pilot is in progress
Best for
US teams that want to see how a vendor measures its own data before committing, and that will run a check on their own list.
2. ZoomInfo
ZoomInfo publishes more about its data than any of the other three non Lusha providers here. Its data page states contact hit rates of 96% for business email, 87% for mobile phone and 72% for direct dial, a regional breakdown that puts North America at 157.8M+ contacts, 79.6M+ companies and 77.7M+ mobile numbers, and a processing figure of 15 to 20 million job change events a month. It is the largest published contact database of the five and the only one besides Lusha to publish counts below the global level.
What is not published is what sits behind the hit rates: no sample, no test date, no definition of what counted as a hit, no confidence range. The 96% and 87% are stated as platform figures, not as the result of a described test. And the breakdown stops at region, so a US buyer has to estimate the split from the North America figure.
Pros
- Hit rates stated separately for email, mobile and direct dial
- Regional contact, company and mobile counts published
- Largest published contact and direct dial totals in the category
- Monthly job change processing volume stated
Cons
- No sample, date, hit definition or confidence range behind the hit rates
- Breakdown stops at region; no country level count
- No own decay rate published, only processing volume
Best for
Enterprise teams that want the largest published totals and stated hit rates, and are comfortable taking the hit rates without a described test.
3. Apollo
Apollo publishes a 91% accuracy rate on verified emails in its help center, describes a seven step verification process, and refunds the credit if an email marked verified bounces within 30 days. That refund is a concrete commitment the larger vendors do not make.
The 91% is stated as an outcome of Apollo’s own verification checks. No sample, date or external deliverability test is published alongside it, no phone figure is stated, and the contact count is global only, with no regional split on Apollo’s own pages.
Pros
- Accuracy figure stated plainly, with a refund on bounces within 30 days
- Verification process described step by step
Cons
- 91% is a verification outcome, not a published test with a sample and date
- No phone figure stated
- No US or regional contact count, global total only
- No published decay or refresh measurement
Best for
Email led teams that value a bounce refund over a published measurement.
4. Cognism
Cognism’s accuracy story is Diamond Data: mobile numbers a human team has called to confirm, described as more than 10 million contacts globally, with a 98% accuracy figure that applies to that verified subset. Cognism also states a refresh cadence, 95% of director level and above contacts refreshed every 30 days and 5% of the full database enriched each month, which is more than the other four say about freshness.
Two limits for a US buyer. The 98% covers the phone verified subset, not the full database, and Cognism does not publish an accuracy figure for the rest. And Cognism publishes no US or regional contact count; its own FAQ states that it does not usually make general coverage claims and prefers to estimate coverage for a specific target market on a call.
Pros
- Human phone verification on a defined subset, with the figure scoped to that subset
- Refresh cadence stated for senior contacts and for the database as a whole
- Positions its phone verified mobile coverage as strongest in UK and European markets
Cons
- 98% applies to the verified subset only; no figure for the full database
- No sample, date or method behind the 98%
- No US or regional contact count, by its own account
Best for
Phone led teams whose targets sit inside the phone verified subset. For US only data needs, that subset is the part of the database to ask about.
5. UpLead
UpLead is the one provider of the five that puts a guarantee on its figure: 95% data accuracy, with credits returned if it falls short, built on real time email verification at the moment of export. For an email led team that is a clear and testable promise.
The guarantee covers email. UpLead does not state a phone figure and the guarantee does not extend to phone numbers. No sample, date or method sits behind the 95%, and the contact count is global only.
Pros
- Accuracy guarantee with credits returned, the only one of the five
- Real time email verification at export
Cons
- Guarantee covers email only; no phone figure
- No sample, date or method behind the 95%
- No US or regional contact count, global total only
- Smallest published database of the five
Best for
Small email led teams that want a refund mechanism more than a published measurement.
How to choose
Want a figure you can check? Every vendor here states accuracy. Lusha is the only one that publishes a measured decay study with its method, and the only one besides ZoomInfo that publishes a count below the global level.
Want a refund if the data is wrong? UpLead guarantees 95% on email with credits returned. Apollo refunds credits on verified emails that bounce within 30 days.
Phone led? Cognism’s phone verified subset carries its 98% figure. Ask what share of your US targets fall inside it.
Need the biggest published database? ZoomInfo publishes the largest totals, a North America count and stated hit rates, without a described test behind them.
Whichever you pick, run a check on your own list. Take 100 contacts you already hold, run real enrichment calls, count only values that come back. Your segment result is worth more than any vendor’s average, including the ones in this post.
FAQs
What is Lusha’s US data coverage?
Lusha’s database includes 87.8M contacts in the United States and 105.4M across North America, broken out by country on the Lusha data page, last updated September 6, 2026. The US is the largest single market in the database.
How is Lusha’s US coverage counted?
By the contact’s recorded location, not the employer’s headquarters. A further 11.5M contacts in the database are not yet broken out by country and are counted in the global total only. Some markets are excluded from country level reporting for compliance reasons.
How accurate is Lusha’s US data?
Lusha states 98% email, 85% US and 86% global phone accuracy, refreshed daily. A July 2026 pilot on 322 US contacts is published with a note that a larger re-run is in progress. The published measurement with full method is the decay study.
How accurate is B2B contact data in the US?
Providers state figures between 87% and 98%, measured in different ways, and none publishes the sample or method behind them. Run 100 of your own contacts through any provider’s free tier and count only values that come back; your segment result is worth more than any vendor’s average.
Which provider has the best US coverage?
Two providers publish more than a global total. ZoomInfo states 157.8M+ contacts for North America as a region. Lusha states 105.4M for North America and breaks it out by country, with 87.8M in the United States. Apollo, Cognism and UpLead publish global totals only, and Cognism’s FAQ says it does not make general coverage claims. On the regional figures, ZoomInfo’s North America count is larger; Lusha’s is the only one that tells you the US number itself.
What goes stale first, contact details or job titles?
Job titles and current employers. Lusha’s decay measurement puts senior role changes at about 1% a month, 12.25% a year, and contact details change far less often than roles, which is why the check to build into outreach is on title, not on phone.
How were the competitor figures sourced?
From each vendor’s own data page, site or help center, linked in the section for each, checked September 13, 2026. Review sites and user reports were not used. Where a vendor publishes no figure for a row, the table says Not stated as of that date.
Conclusion
Five providers will tell you their data is over 85% accurate, and none of them shows you the test, Lusha included. One publishes how fast its data decays, with the sample and the method. A percentage is a statement of confidence. A measured rate is something you can reproduce, and Lusha’s free plan lets you run your own check before you spend a dollar.
Related resources
- How fast does B2B contact data decay?: the 12.25% measurement, 148,000 records
- How accurate is B2B contact data in the US?: the July 2026 pilot, re-run in progress
- Best privacy compliant B2B data providers in the US in 2026: the same five vendor method, applied to compliance
- 10 best data enrichment tools in 2026: the same vendors compared on enrichment, integrations and coverage
- Lusha data page: coverage by country, refreshed weekly
