PredictLeads vs Apollo
A widely adopted all-in-one sales database against a signals provider that treats funding as a tracked event. Reach on one side, focus on the other.
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. PredictLeads through GET /api/v3/companies/{domain}/financing_events. Apollo through GET /api/v1/organizations/enrich.
How PredictLeads and Apollo 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 |
| PredictLeads | GET /api/v3/companies/{domain}/financing_events | 181company measurements · 3 snapshots | 68.0% | 82.4% | 81.8% | 64.3% | 3.2 / 5 | 561 ms | $4.83$0.04 / request · 100 free | PredictLeads official docs | 84.0%152/181 domains |
How PredictLeads and Apollo 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 |
| PredictLeads | GET /api/v3/companies/{domain}/financing_events | 37.9% | 70.1% | 53.4% | 39.0% | 1.9 / 5 | 562 ms | $5.84$0.04 / request · 100 free | PredictLeads official docs | 57.5%126/219 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
- Team already on the all-in-one. The practical question is whether the funding field bundled with the seats you own is accurate enough, or whether it needs a second source behind it.
- Building funding triggers. An event-shaped provider fits anything that fires on a round happening. A field-shaped record tells you the current state and not that it just changed.
- Cost at low match rates. One bills per request with a free allowance, the other per matched record. Which is cheaper flips depending on how many of your companies resolve at all.
PredictLeads vs Apollo: common questions
Can a bundled funding field replace a dedicated provider?
Sometimes, and the benchmark exists so the question is answerable rather than argued. Measure it against the same companies you actually sell to, because a field that is adequate for routing may not be adequate for a trigger.
What does treating funding as an event change?
It changes what you can build. An event carries the fact that a round was announced and when, so a workflow can fire on it. A field on a company record tells you the current stage and nothing about when it changed.
Which is easier to adopt?
The all-in-one, usually, because it is already deployed and the funding field arrives with everything else. A specialist means another contract and another integration, which is only worth it if the measurement says the bundled field falls short.
What breaks if the funding field is simply wrong?
The downstream routing does. A stage drives which segment a company lands in, which sequence it gets and which rep owns it, so a wrong stage is not a blank cell but a misrouted account. That is why the benchmark separates how often a stage comes back from how often the one that comes back is right.