Apollo vs People Data Labs
Two widely used B2B company databases, both selling funding as one field among many. This compares the funding field specifically rather than the platforms around it.
What both are asked for. Given a company domain, return that company's latest funding stage: the most recent round it raised, named correctly. Both receive the same domains and the same output schema, and every answer is judged against a human labelled dataset.
Two boards. Freshness measures rounds announced in the last 30 days: how fast a provider indexes news. Enrichment measures rounds older than that: how completely it has backfilled history. These reward opposite things, so they are ranked separately. Each freshness cohort ages into enrichment once its window closes.
What was called. Apollo through GET /api/v1/organizations/enrich. People Data Labs through GET /v5/company/enrich.
How Apollo and People Data Labs scored on recent rounds
Rounds announced inside the window, with the cohort rebuilt each cycle. This is the rolling freshness board, pooled across every dated snapshot, so each row carries the number of companies that provider was measured on. The company funding benchmark has other vendors that were benchmarked on the same input data. The methodology covers cohort design, Ground Truth and the judging rules.
| Provider | Endpoint & configuration | Measured on | Latest stage correct | Correct when returned | Latest stage returned | Funding fields returned | Fields returned | Median latency | Est. cost | Official docs | Company identified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTM data providers | |||||||||||
| Apollo | GET /api/v1/organizations/enrich | 181company measurements · 3 snapshots | 59.7% | 69.5% | 85.1% | 70.1% | 3.5 / 5 | 320 ms | $3.44$0.0196 / modeled credit | Apollo official docs | 97.2%176/181 domains |
| People Data Labs | GET /v5/company/enrich | 181company measurements · 3 snapshots | 13.3% | 19.5% | 65.2% | 51.4% | 2.6 / 5 | 325 ms | $17.38$0.10 / successful match | People Data Labs official docs | 92.3%167/181 domains |
How Apollo and People Data Labs scored on settled rounds
The same vendors on rounds that were already more than 30 days old when each one ran. Read the company identified column before the rates: arms joined the benchmark at different points, so they do not all sit on the same number of companies. This is the funding enrichment board, scored on rounds that were already more than 30 days old when each provider ran. The company funding benchmark also carries the rolling freshness board. The methodology covers cohort design, Ground Truth and the judging rules.
| Provider | Endpoint & configuration | Latest stage correct | Correct when returned | Latest stage returned | Funding fields returned | Fields returned | Median latency | Est. cost | Official docs | Company identified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTM data providers | ||||||||||
| Apollo | GET /api/v1/organizations/enrich | 49.8% | 63.7% | 78.1% | 64.3% | 3.2 / 5 | 284 ms | $4.16$0.0196 / modeled credit | Apollo official docs | 96.8%212/219 domains |
| People Data Labs | GET /v5/company/enrich | 67.6% | 80.9% | 83.6% | 64.7% | 3.2 / 5 | 276 ms | $21.02$0.10 / successful match | People Data Labs official docs | 95.9%210/219 domains |
Contact data, intent, and integrations are not measured here. This is the company-funding slice only. Full leaderboard, methodology, and per-company evidence →
Where each one fits
- One call, whole record. Both return a broad company profile. If funding is one of several fields you need, the comparison is really about which record is more complete overall, and the returned-fields column is the closest measure of that.
- Already paying for one. Most teams hold a contract with one of these before they ever ask this question. The useful test is whether the funding field on the contract you already have is good enough, rather than which wins outright.
- Credits and match rates. Both bill per record or per match rather than per request, so unresolved companies are the hidden cost. Read company resolution beside the billing basis.
Apollo vs People Data Labs: common questions
Is funding data a first-class product for either of these?
For neither. Both sell broad company and contact data with funding as one field, which is exactly why measuring that field on its own is worth doing. A platform can be strong overall and weak on this specific question.
Should the platform decide, or the funding field?
The platform, usually, because almost nobody buys either of these for funding alone. Use the funding measurement to decide whether you need a second source alongside the one you already pay for.
How is the same company matched across both?
Every provider receives the identical company domain, and the reference for that company is frozen before any of them is called. That is what keeps the comparison about the answer rather than about which vendor resolved a different company.
Do you already have one of these through another tool?
Often, yes, and it changes the calculation. Both are widely resold and embedded inside sequencing and enrichment products, so a team can be paying for one of them without calling the API directly. Check what the existing contract covers before buying a second source for the same field.