benchmarks/company enrichment/most accurate company enrichment api
company enrichment · accuracy

The most accurate company enrichment API

“Most accurate” hides two different questions, and the measured answers differ: People Data Labs returns the most correct data end to end (86.7% correct field yield), while PredictLeads writes the fewest wrong values among what it returns (88.7% accuracy when present). Pick by which failure mode costs you more: missing data, or wrong data.

Every provider on both definitions of accurate

Judged field-by-field by GPT-5.6 against identity-verified LinkedIn reference data, on identical inputs. Higher is better on both:

#ProviderCorrect field yield (end to end)Accuracy when present (right when returned)
1People Data Labs86.7%88.6%
2Fiber86.1%87.1%
3Ocean.io85.3%86.3%
4Apollo84.2%87.8%
5PredictLeads83.8%88.7%
6Explorium74.1%87.6%
7CompanyEnrich71.1%73.7%

Fields with no reference data don't count against anyone. Per-company, per-field judgments are public. Full leaderboard and evidence matrix →

route by constraint

There is no single “best” company enrichment API — the independent benchmark points to a different provider depending on the axis your workflow is constrained by. Every leader below is measured on 300 identity-verified companies:

Full leaderboard, methodology, and per-company evidence: the company enrichment benchmark →

Enrichment accuracy — common questions

What is the most accurate company enrichment API?

Two honest answers, because "accurate" means two things. Most correct data end to end (correct field yield): People Data Labs at 86.7%. Fewest wrong values among returned fields (accuracy when present): PredictLeads at 88.7%. If you're auto-writing to a CRM, the second number is the one that protects your data; if you want the fullest correct picture per company, the first.

Why do coverage and accuracy disagree?

A provider can fill every field (high coverage) and still be wrong often (low accuracy when present), or return few fields but be right about them. That's why a single 'accuracy' number is usually vendor marketing — the benchmark separates yield, accuracy-when-present, and coverage, and reports all three per provider on identical inputs.

How is accuracy judged?

GPT-5.6 compares each provider field against identity-verified LinkedIn reference data with a strict yes/no structured verdict (industry uses a separate judge that accepts taxonomy synonyms). Fields with no reference data are excluded from the denominator, and final judgments are spot-checked by a human. Every judgment is public and reproducible.

Which enrichment provider is most accurate for hard cases — subsidiaries and rebrands?

The cohort deliberately includes 80 subsidiaries (parent-company confusion) and 53 verified rebrands (stale identities) alongside stable-large and long-tail slices. Per-company results for every provider on every slice are on the benchmark's evidence matrix — that's where providers diverge most.