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, and one thing separated them more than the numbers did. Four of the five publish a figure without the sample, the date or the definition of a hit behind it. One publishes the measurement. The measurement is not the largest number in the table, and it is the only one you can 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 published two US tests in July 2026, 322 contacts, with the segments, the sample sizes, the confidence ranges and the pilot result it later overturned. Work email returned a usable value for 322 of 322 contacts. Mobile phone for 97.5%, between 93.9% and 100% by segment. Those are hit rates, and the post says so.
- 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: in Lusha’s test the contact details held; job titles and current employers did not. That is the failure no accuracy percentage captures.
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. 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. Lusha’s test figures are hit rates: a real enrichment call returned a usable value. Apollo’s is deliverability of emails it marked verified. ZoomInfo labels its figures hit rates. UpLead and Cognism state accuracy. Lusha’s own data page also carries platform figures, 98% email accuracy and 86% phone accuracy, stated the same way the other vendors state theirs; the table uses Lusha’s published test rather than those. 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 | |
1. Lusha
Lusha is the only provider of the five that published a US test with its method rather than a figure. Two tests, both run July 28, 2026, both with the sample, the segments, the hit definition and the confidence ranges on the page. The first covered 125 contacts across San Francisco and Boston, at companies of 500 or more and companies of 1 to 50. The second covered 197 contacts across SaaS, financial services, healthcare and manufacturing, nationwide.
Work email returned a usable value for 322 of 322 contacts. Mobile phone for 314, a 97.5% hit rate, with the lowest segment at 93.9% in manufacturing and the highest at 100% in five of eight segments. A hit meant a real enrichment call returned a usable value, not a search result flagging a field as available. That is a hit rate, not a deliverability rate, and it is why these figures will not match a vendor’s availability rate or bounce rate on the same list.
Lusha’s data page also states platform level figures, 98% email accuracy and 86% phone accuracy. Those are stated the way the other four vendors’ figures are stated, without a described test, and they should be read the same way. The 322 contact test is the measurement, and it is what this post compares.
Two things the test found that a percentage would not show. First, a 15 contact pilot returned 86.7% on Boston small companies; expanding it to 47 contacts moved it to 97.9%. Lusha published both numbers rather than the corrected one alone. Second, where the search result and the enrichment disagreed, it was never on email or phone. It was on job title and current employer. Contact details survive a job change. Titles do not. Lusha’s separate decay measurement puts senior contact role changes at 12.6% a year, about 1% a month, on 148,000 records.
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
- Published US test: 322 contacts, two metros, two company size bands, four industries, with method and confidence ranges
- Work email hit rate 100%, mobile phone hit rate 97.5%, hit defined as a revealed value from a real enrichment call
- Own decay rate measured and published, 12.6% a year
- US contact count published at country level, not only a global or regional total
- Free plan, no credit card required, so the test can be repeated on your own list
Cons
- Total contact volume trails ZoomInfo, Apollo and Cognism
- The test covers two metros, four industries and one seniority band. It is not a claim about every US segment, and it says so
- The two large company cells sit on 15 and 13 contacts, so their 100% carries a wide range
- The platform figures on the data page, 98% and 86%, carry no published method, same as the competitors’ figures
Best for
US teams that want a data quality figure they can check, and that will run the same test on their own list before committing.
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 test.
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 test.
How to choose
Want a figure you can check? Lusha is the only one of the five that publishes the sample, the date, the hit definition and the confidence range. The hit rate is 100% on work email and 97.5% on mobile, across 322 US contacts.
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 the test 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 one 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?
In two published tests run July 28, 2026 on 322 US contacts, work email returned a usable value for all 322 and mobile phone for 97.5%, between 93.9% and 100% by segment. Those are hit rates from real enrichment calls, published with sample sizes and confidence ranges in the metros and company size test and the industry test. Lusha’s data page separately states platform figures of 98% email accuracy and 86% phone accuracy, which are stated without a described test.
How accurate is B2B contact data in the US?
In Lusha’s published test of 322 US contacts, work email returned a usable value for all of them and mobile phone for 97.5%, ranging from 93.9% to 100% by segment. Those are hit rates. Other providers state figures between 87% and 98%, measured in different ways, and do not publish the sample or method behind them.
Why is a measured 97.5% worth more than a stated 98%?
Because you can check it. A measured figure comes with the sample, the date and what counted as a hit, so you know what it covers and what it does not. A stated figure without those tells you the vendor’s confidence, not the data’s behavior on your list. That applies to Lusha’s own platform figures as much as to anyone else’s.
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.
Does data quality differ by industry or metro in the US?
In Lusha’s test, no meaningful difference on work email across two metros, two company sizes and four industries. Mobile phone ran two to six points lower in small companies, healthcare and manufacturing, and none of those gaps reached statistical significance at the sample sizes tested.
What goes stale first, contact details or job titles?
Job titles and current employers. In every case where Lusha’s search result and enrichment disagreed, the email and phone were correct and the role was out of date. Lusha’s decay measurement puts senior role changes at about 1% a month, 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
Four of the five providers here will tell you their data is over 85% accurate. One will show you the test. The measured number is not the highest in the table, and it comes with a list of what it does not cover, which is the point. A percentage without a sample size is a statement of confidence. A percentage with one is a fact you can reproduce on your own list before you spend a dollar, and Lusha’s free plan lets you run it before you buy.
Related resources
- How accurate is B2B contact data in the US?: the metros and company size test behind this comparison
- Does B2B contact data quality vary by industry?: the industry test, 197 contacts
- How fast does B2B contact data decay?: the 12.6% measurement
- Best privacy compliant B2B data providers in the US in 2026: the same five vendor method, applied to compliance
- Lusha data page: coverage by country, refreshed weekly
