FullEnrich vs Lusha 2026
Short answer: pick FullEnrich if you enrich lists in bulk and want to pay only for data actually found, since its waterfall cascades 20+ premium providers and lands roughly 80% email coverage per the vendor versus the 40 to 60% a single source typically returns. Pick Lusha if a rep needs to reveal one contact live on LinkedIn with near-zero learning curve. FullEnrich edges the overall (3.9 vs 3.7) on value and support, Lusha wins ease of use and, narrowly, features and integrations.
The catch most comparisons skip: these tools sit at opposite ends of the workflow. FullEnrich has no database of its own and no sequencer, it routes across other providers and only charges on a hit. Lusha owns its database and a polished Chrome extension but bills per seat with pricey credits, and its Chrome extension is the daily habit FullEnrich is about to lose, its own LinkedIn extension is set to be discontinued in June 2026. This page runs the trade-offs that decide it.
Cascades 20+ providers, pays only on a hit, ~80% email coverage per the vendor.
Try FullEnrich for free →Read the full FullEnrich review →One-click LinkedIn reveals from a polished extension. Easy, but per-seat and pricey.
Try Lusha for free →Read the full Lusha review →Who wins for you
FullEnrich's waterfall pulls 20+ providers and charges only on a hit, so a 1,000-row CSV costs you only the rows it actually finds. Lusha's per-seat credits make bulk enrichment expensive fast.
Try FullEnrich for free →Lusha's Chrome extension reveals a phone or email in one click on a profile, near-zero learning curve. FullEnrich is built for batches, and its own LinkedIn extension is being discontinued in June 2026.
Try Lusha for free →FullEnrich exposes a public API and connects to Clay, n8n, Make and Zapier, so it slots in as an enrichment step in a no-code pipeline. That is its natural home.
Try FullEnrich for free →Lusha's database plus extension is the lower-friction starting point when nobody on the team wants to build a workflow. Coverage is strongest in North America and the UK.
Try Lusha for free →FullEnrich vs Lusha at a glance
Every cell below is grounded in each tool's pricing pages, our own hands-on reviews and the latest 2026 sources. The two tools play different positions, so read the architecture row first.
| FullEnrich | Lusha | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core modelDifferent jobs, not direct substitutes | Waterfall enrichment: no own database, cascades 20+ external providers | Single-source: proprietary database plus a Chrome extension | — |
| Contact database | None of its own, routes across 20+ providers (Clearbit, Hunter, Wiza, ContactOut, Snov, Datagma and more) | Proprietary database, single source | — |
| Email find rateWaterfall is FullEnrich's reason to exist | ~80% per the vendor via multi-provider waterfall | Single-source, one independent test found emails for only ~31% of lookups | FullEnrich |
| Pricing model | Credit-based, pay-per-found: charged only on data actually returned | Per-seat plus credits, charged on some plans even on bounced data | FullEnrich |
| Free tier | 50 credits, no card required | 40 credits/month | FullEnrich |
| Browser extensionLusha's extension is its core daily habit | Chrome LinkedIn extension, being discontinued June 2026 | Polished Chrome extension, one-click LinkedIn reveals | Lusha |
| Outreach and sequencingNeither replaces an outreach tool | None, no native sequencer | None, no native sequencer | — |
| Bulk and API | Bulk CSV upload plus a public API and LinkedIn-URL enrichment | Bulk export plus API and an MCP connector | FullEnrich |
| Geographic coverage | Waterfall pulls EU-capable providers, broader by design | Strongest North America and UK, thin in EU and APAC | FullEnrich |
| IntegrationsNarrow win on featured-partner breadth | HubSpot, Salesforce, Pipedrive plus Clay, n8n, Make, Zapier and a public API | 22 featured partners plus API and an MCP connector | Lusha |
| Reviews | G2 ~4.8/5, Trustpilot ~2.4/5 (complaints from individuals about data, not product) | G2 4.3/5, Trustpilot 1.2/5 (mostly data subjects on GDPR) | FullEnrich |
| GDPR exposureBoth carry data-subject complaints, verify your legal basis | Aggregates third-party data, privacy complaints from listed individuals | Documented GDPR baggage, mostly from EU data subjects | — |
| Ideal user | RevOps, growth and automation teams enriching lists at scale | Reps revealing single contacts live on LinkedIn | — |
Prices and review scores checked June 2026 on each vendor's site, G2 and Trustpilot. FullEnrich bills per credit on a pay-per-found basis, Lusha bills per seat plus credits, so totals are not directly comparable.
Criterion by criterion, head to head
The same five criteria we scored on each tool's review page. Equal scores still get a clear pick.
01 Round 1: getting from signup to a found contact.
Lusha takes this 4.5 to 4.0, and on a LinkedIn profile it is not close. Install the Chrome extension, open a prospect, click once, and the phone or email appears in the side panel. The learning curve is close to zero, which is exactly why reps adopt it without training. For grabbing a single contact in the flow of work, nothing here is faster.
FullEnrich is clean but built for a different motion. You paste a LinkedIn URL or upload a CSV, the waterfall runs, and results come back as a list you export. We had a first batch enriched in a few minutes, no real friction. The catch is the timing: FullEnrich's own LinkedIn Chrome extension is being discontinued in June 2026, so the one-off live-reveal experience that Lusha nails is the part FullEnrich is stepping back from. If your habit is one contact at a time on a profile, Lusha fits the hand better. If it is a list, both are simple.
Choose FullEnrich if your default action is enriching a list, not a single profile.
Choose Lusha if a rep needs one-click reveals on LinkedIn with no setup or training.
02 Round 2: what you actually pay for what you get.
FullEnrich takes this 3.8 to 2.6, and the gap is the widest of the five. The reason is the billing model: pay-per-found means you are only charged when the waterfall actually returns data, so a list full of misses does not drain your balance. Email costs 1 credit, personal email 3, mobile 10, reverse email lookup 1, and unused credits roll over (3 months on monthly, 12 on annual). For bulk work where hit rates vary, paying only on success is the honest deal.
Lusha's 2.6 reflects the opposite structure. It bills per seat (from ~$37/seat/month, uncertain, verify current pricing), credits are pricey, a phone or mobile reveal costs 10 credits against 1 for an email, and on some plans you are charged even when the data bounces. For a rep doing a handful of reveals a day the per-seat model can still pencil out. But scale it across a team enriching lists and the per-seat plus per-credit math gets expensive against a tool that only charges on a hit. The honest point in Lusha's favour: predictable per-seat pricing is easier to forecast than variable credit burn.
Choose FullEnrich if you enrich at volume and want to pay only for data actually found.
Choose Lusha if a small team does light, predictable reveals and wants a flat per-seat bill.
03 Round 3: waterfall enrichment vs an integrated database tool.
Lusha edges this 4.0 to 3.9, and the gap is razor-thin because the two are deep in opposite directions. Lusha bundles a proprietary database, a one-click extension, list building and bulk export into one product that a rep can use end to end without thinking about plumbing. It feels like a complete prospecting surface for someone working live on LinkedIn, even if accuracy varies (one independent test returned emails for only ~31% of lookups).
FullEnrich owns enrichment depth instead. The waterfall cascades 20+ premium providers (Clearbit, Hunter, Wiza, ContactOut, Snov and Datagma cited illustratively), so where a single source misses, the next one in the cascade gets a chance, which is how the vendor reaches ~80% email coverage versus the 40 to 60% a lone provider tends to manage. It adds reverse email lookup, LinkedIn-URL enrichment, mobile finding and a public API. The honest catch on both: neither has a sequencer, so neither sends a single email. FullEnrich is the deeper finder, Lusha is the more self-contained product.
Choose FullEnrich if maximum coverage from a multi-provider cascade is the point.
Choose Lusha if you want one integrated tool a rep can run without wiring anything up.
04 Round 4: who answers when you are stuck.
FullEnrich takes this 4.0 to 3.2. As a smaller, focused product it tends to answer fast and in a hands-on way, and its G2 standing (~4.8/5) lines up with users who report responsive, useful help when a waterfall or an integration needs tuning. For a team building enrichment into a pipeline, that kind of attentive support matters more than a big help center.
Lusha's 3.2 is not a disaster, it is a bigger operation with broader documentation, but the experience is more uneven and a chunk of its public reputation is dragged down by data-subject complaints rather than buyer support tickets (Trustpilot 1.2/5, mostly from individuals contesting their listing). The fair read on both: neither leans on a large 24/7 desk, and FullEnrich's Trustpilot (~2.4/5) carries the same kind of privacy-driven complaints, a data story, not a product-quality one, so weigh those scores on both sides for what they are. On buyer-facing responsiveness, FullEnrich is the one we would rather have in our corner.
Choose FullEnrich if responsive, hands-on help while you build a workflow matters.
Choose Lusha if a broad help center and a larger vendor footprint reassure you.
05 Round 5: automation-first plumbing vs featured-partner breadth.
Lusha takes this 4.3 to 4.2, and it is the second-closest round. Lusha lists 22 featured integration partners, ships a public API and even offers an MCP connector for AI workflows, so on sheer count of named, supported partners it edges ahead. For a team that wants a tidy directory of one-click connections, that breadth is a real point.
FullEnrich answers with the connectors automation teams actually reach for. It syncs to HubSpot, Salesforce and Pipedrive on the CRM side and plugs directly into Clay, n8n, Make and Zapier, plus a public API for anything custom, which is exactly the no-code stack where enrichment belongs as a step. That is the structural difference: Lusha wins the partner count, FullEnrich wins the automation depth that makes it a clean enrichment node in a pipeline. If you live in Clay or n8n, FullEnrich slots in more naturally even though the headline number favours Lusha.
Choose FullEnrich if Clay, n8n, Make or a public API are central to how you work.
Choose Lusha if a broad directory of featured, one-click partners is what you want.
The real cost, plan by plan
Two pricing models that do not map onto each other: FullEnrich bills credits on a pay-per-found basis, Lusha bills per seat plus credits. We list the plans, then flag where the structure bites, assumptions stated.
| FullEnrich | Lusha | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FreeBoth are test-only, not for real campaigns | $0: 50 credits, no card required | $0: 40 credits/month | FullEnrich |
| Entry planLusha bills per seat, FullEnrich per account | Pro from ~$55/month: 1,000 credits (check current pricing) | Starter from ~$37/seat/month (uncertain, verify current pricing) | — |
| Higher plan | Enterprise custom | Professional higher per seat, Premium ~$399.90/month | — |
| Billing modelFullEnrich's structural advantage on misses | Pay-per-found: charged only on data actually returned | Charged on some plans even on bounced data | FullEnrich |
| Credit costMobile and phone reveals are the expensive line on both | Email 1 credit, personal email 3, mobile 10, reverse email lookup 1 | Email 1 credit, phone reveal 10 credits | — |
| Credit rollover | Rolls over 3 months (monthly) or 12 months (annual) | Monthly credit reset on standard plans | FullEnrich |
| Bulk enrichment, mixed hit listThe gap widens the more your lists miss | Only the found rows are charged, misses cost nothing | Credits can be consumed on some plans even when data bounces | FullEnrich |
Prices checked June 2026 and illustrative; verify current pricing on each vendor's site. ⚠ FullEnrich figures exclude any unconfirmed tiers (no $29 Starter or $59 tier cited). ⚠ Lusha's Starter rate is uncertain and marked with a ~; Premium cited at ~$399.90/month.
Pick by scenario
Choose FullEnrich if…
- You enrich lists in bulk and want to pay only for data the waterfall actually finds
- Coverage is the bottleneck, the cascade of 20+ providers reaches ~80% email per the vendor versus 40 to 60% single-source
- Your stack runs on Clay, n8n, Make or Zapier and enrichment needs to be a clean API step
- You work LinkedIn-URL or reverse-email lookups, not just one-off profile reveals
- You want unused credits to roll over (3 months monthly, 12 months annual) rather than reset
Choose Lusha if…
- A rep needs to reveal a single contact live on a LinkedIn profile in one click
- Near-zero learning curve matters more than maximum coverage or automation
- Your targeting is mainly North America and the UK, where Lusha's data is strongest
- You want one self-contained database plus extension instead of wiring up a pipeline
- Predictable per-seat billing is easier for you to forecast than variable credit burn
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between FullEnrich and Lusha?
FullEnrich is a waterfall enrichment tool with no database of its own: it cascades 20+ premium providers (Clearbit, Hunter, Wiza, ContactOut and others) and only charges when data is actually found, reaching about 80% email coverage per the vendor. Lusha is a single-source proprietary database paired with a polished Chrome extension for one-click LinkedIn reveals. The practical split is workflow position. FullEnrich is built for bulk enrichment and automation through CSV upload and a public API, while Lusha is built for a rep grabbing one contact live on a profile. Neither has a sequencer, so neither sends outreach. Use FullEnrich when coverage and pay-per-found economics matter, use Lusha when instant single reveals matter.Is FullEnrich or Lusha cheaper?
It depends on how you work. FullEnrich uses pay-per-found credit billing: email costs 1 credit, personal email 3, mobile 10, and you are only charged when data is returned, so misses cost nothing. Its free tier is 50 credits with no card, and Pro starts from around $55/month for 1,000 credits (check current pricing). Lusha bills per seat, from roughly $37/seat/month (uncertain, verify current pricing) up to Premium around $399.90/month, with a phone reveal costing 10 credits and some plans charging even on bounced data. For bulk enrichment with variable hit rates, FullEnrich is usually cheaper because you avoid paying for misses. For a single rep doing light reveals, Lusha's flat per-seat bill can be simpler to forecast.FullEnrich vs Lusha: which is better for bulk enrichment?
FullEnrich is better for bulk enrichment. It is built around CSV upload, LinkedIn-URL enrichment and a public API, and its waterfall cascades 20+ providers so a single source missing a contact does not end the search, which is how the vendor reports about 80% email coverage versus the 40 to 60% a lone provider typically returns. Crucially, the pay-per-found model means a 1,000-row list only charges you for the rows it actually finds. Lusha can export in bulk too, but its per-seat plus per-credit pricing and single-source database make large enrichment runs both pricier and lower-coverage. If your job is processing lists rather than revealing one profile at a time, FullEnrich is the right tool.Which is better for grabbing a contact live on LinkedIn?
Lusha is better for live single reveals on LinkedIn. Its Chrome extension shows a phone or email in one click directly on a prospect's profile, with near-zero learning curve, which is exactly the motion reps want in the flow of work. FullEnrich is built for batches, you paste a LinkedIn URL or upload a CSV and export a list, and importantly its own LinkedIn Chrome extension is being discontinued in June 2026. So for one-off, in-the-moment reveals while browsing LinkedIn, Lusha is the stronger pick. If you instead need to enrich a whole list of LinkedIn URLs at once, FullEnrich's URL enrichment and waterfall coverage are the better fit. The two solve different halves of the same job.Does FullEnrich have a Chrome extension?
Yes for now, but it is being discontinued in June 2026. FullEnrich has offered a Chrome extension for LinkedIn enrichment, but the vendor is sunsetting it, so it should not be the reason you choose the tool. FullEnrich's real strength sits elsewhere: bulk CSV enrichment, LinkedIn-URL enrichment, reverse email lookup and a public API that plug into Clay, n8n, Make and Zapier. If a persistent browser extension for one-click reveals is central to your workflow, Lusha's Chrome extension is the one designed for that and is not being retired. Choose FullEnrich for list and API enrichment, and do not count on its extension being available much past mid-2026.How accurate is FullEnrich vs Lusha?
FullEnrich generally returns higher coverage. Because it runs a waterfall across 20+ providers, when one source misses an email the next in the cascade gets a chance, which is how the vendor reports roughly 80% email find rate against the 40 to 60% a single source tends to deliver. Lusha relies on its own database, and accuracy varies: one independent test found valid emails for only about 31% of lookups, and its coverage is strongest in North America and the UK while thinner in the EU and APAC. The honest caveat is that find rates depend heavily on your list and region, so treat the ~80% figure as vendor-reported. For maximum coverage on mixed lists, FullEnrich's multi-source approach has the structural edge.Is FullEnrich or Lusha better for mobile and phone numbers?
FullEnrich usually finds more mobile numbers, but neither is cheap on phone data. FullEnrich charges 10 credits per mobile and runs it through the same multi-provider waterfall, so coverage tends to be higher than a single source, and you only pay when a number is actually found. Lusha charges 10 credits for a phone or mobile reveal as well, but it draws from its single proprietary database and some plans charge even when the data bounces, which raises the effective cost on misses. Mobile is the most expensive line item on both tools, so budget accordingly. If phone coverage on varied lists is the priority, FullEnrich's cascade plus pay-per-found billing is the safer bet.Which is more GDPR-friendly for EU prospecting?
Neither is clearly safer, and both carry documented data-subject complaints. Lusha has visible GDPR baggage, its Trustpilot score of 1.2/5 is driven largely by EU individuals contesting their listing rather than by buyers, and its data coverage is thinner in the EU to begin with. FullEnrich aggregates third-party providers and shows the same pattern, a Trustpilot around 2.4/5 with complaints from individuals whose number was found, which is a privacy story rather than a product-quality one. Whichever you pick, the legal basis for processing EU contacts (legitimate interest or consent) and the suppression of opt-outs is on you to establish. For EU prospecting, treat both with the same caution and confirm your own compliance posture before running campaigns.Can FullEnrich or Lusha replace my outreach tool?
No, neither has a sequencer, so neither can replace an outreach tool. Both FullEnrich and Lusha are data tools: they find emails and phone numbers, but they do not send sequences, manage cadences or handle replies. You will still need a dedicated sender such as Instantly, Lemlist or Salesloft on top of either one. The realistic setup is to use FullEnrich or Lusha as the enrichment layer that feeds clean contacts into your CRM or sending tool, then run the actual campaigns there. FullEnrich makes this easy through its API and connectors to Clay, n8n, Make and Zapier, while Lusha exports to its 22 featured partners. Plan for a separate outreach budget regardless of which you choose.FullEnrich vs Lusha: which for a RevOps or automation stack?
FullEnrich is the better fit for a RevOps or automation stack. It exposes a public API and connects natively to Clay, n8n, Make and Zapier, plus CRM sync with HubSpot, Salesforce and Pipedrive, so it drops in as a clean enrichment step inside a no-code or scripted pipeline. The pay-per-found billing also suits automated runs where hit rates vary, since you never pay for misses. Lusha offers an API, an MCP connector and 22 featured partners, which is solid, but it is designed around a rep using the Chrome extension rather than around programmatic enrichment at scale. If your enrichment needs to run as an automated node feeding other systems, FullEnrich is the natural choice.
Test both, then decide
Free to start on either side. The fastest way to know is to run one real prospect list through each.
Best for RevOps, growth and automation teams who want maximum coverage and pay only for data found. Free 50 credits, then Pro from ~$55/month.
Try FullEnrich for free →Read the full FullEnrich review →Best for reps who reveal single contacts live on LinkedIn and want zero setup. Free 40 credits/month, then per-seat plans.
Try Lusha for free →Read the full Lusha review →Affiliate links: if you sign up through them, you support our independent hands-on tests at no extra cost to you. We score both tools the same way and disclose the weak spots on each, including the ones we would otherwise recommend.
Get the next comparison in your inbox
Join 2,400+ makers who get our independent tool tests every week.