Everyone publishes coverage numbers. Almost nobody publishes their own. So we ran our engine over five hundred and nineteen people and wrote down exactly what came back.
Enrichment vendors love a big number. "300M contacts." "10 data sources." "The most accurate database." None of it tells you the only thing that matters: give it a real person, how often does the thing you need actually come back?
So we measured our own. Not a benchmark, not a customer's data. Five hundred and nineteen people and twenty-nine companies run through abm.dev's own pipeline, every field logged with its source and a confidence score. Here is the honest read.
People: the find-rate, per field
Across 519 people:
- LinkedIn URL: 99.6%. Near-universal. If someone has a professional life online, we find the profile.
- Title: 97.5%. Almost always, and usually current.
- Work email: 82%. Four in five. This is the number everyone actually cares about, and it's the one everyone is vaguest about.
- Phone: 6%. Phone is the weak spot, and we'd rather show you the number than bury it. Direct dials go stale quickly, so we lean on the channels where the trail stays live, email and LinkedIn. Where we don't have a number, the field comes back empty.
That's the pattern throughout. A field that isn't there comes back empty, not invented.
Confidence: the miss is knowable
Every value carries a score from zero to one. Across roughly fourteen thousand field-values, the median confidence was 0.87. Forty-three percent scored 0.9 or higher. Four percent came back under 0.5.
That distribution is the product. An agent acting on this data doesn't get a flat "here you go." It gets an 82% email and a number telling it how sure to be. Act on the 0.94. Hold the 0.51. Route the low ones to a human. The 18% we miss on email isn't a silent gap you discover after a bounce. It's a field that isn't there, next to fields that tell you their own odds.
Companies
The company sample is smaller and honesty demands the caveat: twenty-nine firms, so read these as directional, not gospel. Headquarters came back every time. Employee count 97%. Revenue 69%, which is about right for a figure that's genuinely private for most private companies.
The caveat we're not hiding
These were people with a real professional footprint, the kind you'd actually want to reach. Run the same engine over a cold, random, scraped list and the email number drops. Enrichment is only as good as the person's public trail, and ours is honest about that: it tells you when it's guessing instead of guessing in a confident voice.
Every field here was corroborated across more than one provider, Perplexity, Tavily, LinkedIn and Hunter among them, aggregated and reconciled into one answer. One key, one call. No per-source bills. No fabricated data.
Why we published this
Because the buyer is increasingly an agent, and an agent can't act on a marketing claim. It can act on 82% and a confidence score. The vendors quoting database sizes are answering a question nobody's agent is asking.
Run it on an account you know cold and check our working. There's a free playground at abm.dev, and LAUNCHCODES puts about twenty in credits on your account. Tell us where the 82% is wrong. That's the useful part.
Top comments (0)