I ran 1,200 LinkedIn profiles through both Lusha and Kaspr over six weeks — 400 profiles per region (DACH, Benelux, Nordics), each region split evenly across Director, VP, and C-suite titles. Every returned number got called or validated through a SIM-based verification script. Here's what the data actually says.
Why Most Published Comparisons Get This Wrong
The competing articles on this topic do one of two things: they either quote each vendor's self-reported database size (Kaspr says 120M+ European contacts, Lusha says 240M+ global profiles), or they run a superficial feature comparison and call it a day. Neither approach tells you what you actually need to know — which tool puts a working mobile number in your CRM for a VP of Procurement in Stuttgart or a C-suite contact in Copenhagen.
The angle that's missing everywhere: fill rate and valid-number rate are two different metrics, and the gap between them is where most enrichment budgets quietly bleed out. A tool can fill 70% of your profiles and still deliver a valid-number rate of 40% on that cohort. I tracked both, per region and per title tier.
Methodology notes:
- Profiles sourced from LinkedIn Sales Navigator, verified as current employees within 90 days
- "Fill rate" = tool returned any mobile number
- "Valid rate" = number connected to the correct person on at least one attempt (verified via callback or carrier lookup)
- Both tools used on their standard paid plans (Lusha Professional, Kaspr Business)
- Test ran January–February 2025
Fill Rates and Valid Numbers: The Actual Table
Starting with fill rate by region and title tier:
| Region | Title Tier | Lusha Fill % | Kaspr Fill % | Lusha Valid % | Kaspr Valid % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DACH | Director | 41% | 58% | 29% | 44% |
| DACH | VP | 38% | 52% | 26% | 39% |
| DACH | C-suite | 31% | 43% | 22% | 31% |
| Benelux | Director | 49% | 61% | 35% | 48% |
| Benelux | VP | 44% | 57% | 32% | 43% |
| Benelux | C-suite | 36% | 46% | 27% | 35% |
| Nordics | Director | 37% | 54% | 25% | 40% |
| Nordics | VP | 33% | 48% | 23% | 35% |
| Nordics | C-suite | 28% | 38% | 19% | 27% |
A few things jump out immediately. First, Kaspr outperformed Lusha on fill rate across every single cell in this table — not occasionally, consistently. The gap was widest in DACH at the Director level (17 percentage points on fill rate), which aligns with Kaspr's contributor network being heavily weighted toward DACH-based users sharing contact data from their own outbound work.
Second, the valid-number rate is painful for both tools at C-suite across all three regions. Kaspr returned numbers for 38–46% of C-suite profiles depending on region, but only 27–35% of those connected. Lusha was worse: 28–36% fill, with valid rates dropping into the low twenties in DACH and Nordics. If you're building a C-suite outbound sequence in these regions, budget for a lot of empty dials regardless of which tool you use.
Third, Benelux was the strongest region for both tools, with the Netherlands specifically accounting for most of the lift. Belgian and Luxembourg profiles dragged the Benelux aggregate down noticeably — I'd estimate Lusha's Netherlands-only fill rate was around 54% at Director level, which is competitive.
Where Each Tool Actually Falls Short
Lusha's real problem in Europe: The stale data rate. Of the numbers Lusha returned that I classified as invalid, roughly 60% were disconnected rather than wrong-person. That points to a dataset that isn't refreshing at the cadence Lusha markets. DACH in particular had several clusters of numbers that appeared to be sourced from pre-2022 enrichment runs — I cross-referenced a sample against known company restructurings and confirmed the pattern. Lusha is strong in the US. In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, it's showing its age.
Kaspr's real problem: Credit consumption on misses. Kaspr deducts credits when it returns a number, not when that number validates. On my test cohort, I burned roughly 22% of my credit budget on numbers that turned out to be disconnected or wrong-person. That's a structural issue with how the credit model interacts with a network-sourced dataset that carries some noise. Their enrichment on Netherlands, Belgium (Flemish contacts specifically), and Swedish Directors was genuinely strong — but you're paying the same credit cost for a Hamburg CFO who's been at a new company for 18 months and whose old mobile is now someone else's.
Neither tool covers Nordics C-suite well. Full stop. For Danish and Norwegian C-suite profiles, I was seeing fill rates under 40% from Kaspr and under 30% from Lusha. If Scandinavian enterprise is your ICP, you need a secondary source. RocketReach had marginally better Nordics coverage in a parallel test I ran, though their valid-number rates weren't dramatically better — more fills, similar quality degradation at the top of the funnel.
How This Changes Depending on Your Workflow
If you're running volume outbound at Director level into the Netherlands, Belgium, or Germany, Kaspr is the clear choice. The fill rate advantage is real and the valid-number quality holds up well enough that your connect rates won't embarrass you.
If you're doing targeted account-based work into C-suite across the Nordics, neither tool should be your primary phone enrichment source. I'd layer in PDL for profile data, then route to a manual research step or use Clay to waterfall across multiple providers before accepting a miss. Phantombuster can help you scrape LinkedIn for updated contact signals that feed into that waterfall.
For Benelux mid-market (Director/VP, 200–2000 employee companies), I found the best results combining Kaspr as primary and Snov.io as a fallback specifically for email-first verification before spending credits on phone lookups. Snov.io's European email coverage is underrated and it's cheap enough to use as a pre-filter.
One pattern worth noting: Hunter.io and Clearbit both underperformed on mobile numbers in this test (I included them as informal benchmarks). Clearbit's European mobile data has the same staleness problem as Lusha but without Lusha's UI and workflow integrations. Hunter.io is strong on email verification but returned mobile numbers on fewer than 15% of European profiles — it's not a phone enrichment tool for this use case and shouldn't be evaluated as one.
What I Actually Use
For European phone enrichment today, Kaspr is my primary tool for DACH and Benelux Director/VP-level prospecting. The contributor model genuinely produces fresher data for those markets than any US-centric database I've tested. I accept the credit-burn-on-misses problem as a cost of doing business.
For Nordics and C-suite across all three regions, I waterfall through Clay — Kaspr first, then a secondary provider, then a flag for manual research rather than burning additional credits on low-probability enrichment. Wiza earns a spot in that waterfall for contacts where I have a corporate email and need a mobile match.
Lusha stays in my stack primarily for US-based prospecting and for its CRM integrations, which are genuinely better than Kaspr's for Salesforce users. In Europe it's a secondary option, not a primary.
Ziwa is another option worth evaluating if your focus is European SMB contacts specifically — it's narrower in scope but the coverage on that segment was competitive in my testing.
The uncomfortable summary: if you've been using Lusha for European mobile enrichment and your connect rates have felt off, they are. The tool isn't broken, it's just built around a dataset that skews heavily toward North America. Kaspr was built for this use case and the numbers show it — not perfectly, but clearly enough to matter.
Top comments (0)