Best 7 phone enrich tool in 2026 : Tested with real data.

Looking for the best phone enrichment tool for your B2B prospecting? We tested seven of them on the same 100 hard LinkedIn profiles (large corporations and public institutions) with an equal budget, then ranked them on what actually matters: real success rate and real cost per number, not subscription sticker price. The cheapest is not the best, and one or two so-called leaders miss the mark.

The podium

Derrick App takes the value crown: a 91% hit rate at around EUR 0.30 per number, the strongest cost-to-accuracy balance in the test. Here is the full breakdown so you can match a tool to your budget and volume.

How we tested these phone enrichment tools

Most online comparisons of phone enrichment tools are shallow or recycled vendor copy, so we ran a real-world test on deliberately hard data.

• Test base: 100 LinkedIn profiles (first name, last name, profile URL) from large corporations and public institutions, the kind of contacts that defeat weak databases.
• Equal budget: roughly EUR 50 per month per tool, so no tool got an unfair quota advantage.
• Metrics: success rate (share of profiles returning a usable number), real cost per number (subscription divided by numbers actually found, not the advertised quota), and overall value for money.

Why cost per number rather than the subscription price? Because a cheap plan with a low hit rate is expensive in practice: you pay for a quota you cannot fill. Measuring the real cost of each number found is the only fair way to compare tools across different pricing models.

Derrick App: the best value for B2B phone enrichment

Success rate 91% | Real cost ~EUR 0.30 per number | Native Google Sheets

Derrick enriches your LinkedIn leads (first name, last name, profile URL) with a verified phone number directly inside Google Sheets. You point it at a column, it fills and verifies the numbers row by row, with a confidence score and a clean, dial-ready format. There is no separate dashboard and no CSV round-trip: it runs as a sidebar in the spreadsheet your team already uses.

Who it is for: growth and sales teams that want the best balance of accuracy and price, and anyone comfortable working in Google Sheets.

Why it wins: 91% success on hard profiles at around EUR 0.30 per number is the strongest value in the test. ProntoHQ edged it on raw accuracy (93%) but at nearly double the cost per number, and the cheaper options trade away accuracy. For the common case, a B2B team enriching a steady flow of LinkedIn leads, Derrick is the pick that does not force you to choose between hit rate and budget.

The value gap widens at scale. Because you pay per number actually found and unused credits roll over, the cost stays predictable as volume grows, rather than punishing you for a quota you did not finish. Combined with the native Google Sheets workflow, that makes Derrick as comfortable for a solo founder enriching a short list as for a sales team processing thousands of leads a month, the same tool from small batches to high volume.

How Derrick enriches phone numbers in Google Sheets

Derrick is a Google Sheets sidebar, not a set of formulas to memorise. The workflow is short:

• Put your leads in a sheet, one row each, with a name and LinkedIn URL.
• Open Derrick from the Extensions menu and choose the Phone Finder feature.
• Map your input column and run it. Derrick performs a multi-source lookup and writes a verified number into a new column, row by row.
• You are billed per phone actually found (150 credits per number), so you pay for results, not attempts, and credits roll over instead of resetting each month.

Because the lookup happens at the moment you run it, the numbers are fresh rather than pulled from a file that aged on a shelf. The Free plan gives 100 credits with no card, so you can test the hit rate on your own list before paying. Try Derrick free in Google Sheets.

ProntoHQ: the premium accuracy pick

Success rate 93% | Real cost ~EUR 0.50 per number

ProntoHQ enriches from CRM or spreadsheet input with very high precision on hard-to-reach profiles. It posted the best raw hit rate in the test, 93%, but at around EUR 0.50 per number it costs noticeably more than Derrick for a two-point accuracy gain. It suits B2B startups, consulting firms, and sales teams chasing high-value leads where every single contact justifies the premium. For most steady-volume teams, the extra cost per number is hard to justify against Derrick's value.

Zeliq: the low cost-per-number newcomer

Success rate 88% | Real cost ~EUR 0.20 per number

Zeliq offers fast enrichment, CRM integration, and a clean, modern interface at an aggressive price. At around EUR 0.20 per number with an 88% hit rate, it is the cheapest credible option in the test, a strong fit for SMEs, startups, and budget-conscious growth teams. The trade-off versus Derrick is the workflow: Zeliq lives in its own app rather than in your spreadsheet, and the hit rate sits a few points lower on hard profiles.

Airscale and Full Enrich: the multi-source stacks

Airscale: 91% at ~EUR 0.49 | Full Enrich: 87% at ~EUR 0.49

Both Airscale and Full Enrich use a waterfall approach, querying several databases in cascade to maximise the hit rate. Airscale posted a solid 91% success but at around EUR 0.49 per number, and suits growth teams that want multi-source reliability for mid volumes. Full Enrich aggregates multiple providers into one cascade for a turnkey, automation-focused setup, landing at 87% for a similar cost. Both are reasonable fallbacks when you specifically want a multi-database stack, though neither beats Derrick on cost per verified number.

Apollo and Kaspr: volume and plug-and-play

Apollo: 42% at ~EUR 0.16 | Kaspr: 66% at ~EUR 0.40

Apollo is built for mass outreach, offering huge quotas at a very low headline price (around EUR 0.16 per number). The catch is accuracy: a 42% success rate on hard profiles means more than half the numbers were unusable, which is why a cheap quota can still be expensive once you count only the numbers that work. It fits brute-force, high-volume cold-calling where quantity beats quality. Kaspr is a plug-and-play Chrome extension for quick, one-off lookups, intuitive but with an average 66% hit rate at around EUR 0.40, better for individual reps and casual use than for systematic enrichment at scale.

How to pick the right phone enrichment tool

Match the tool to your priority, not to a leaderboard:

• Best value for money: Derrick, the strongest accuracy-to-cost balance and native to Google Sheets.
• Maximum accuracy, budget no object: ProntoHQ, two points higher on hit rate at a premium price.
• Lowest cost per number: Zeliq, cheapest credible option for budget-conscious teams.
• Multi-source automation: Airscale or Full Enrich; Derrick keeps the same job simpler from a spreadsheet.
• Raw volume: Apollo, only if you can absorb a low hit rate.
• Casual one-off lookups: Kaspr, for individual reps rather than scaled enrichment.

Two rules cut through the noise. First, judge tools on real cost per number, not subscription price, because a low hit rate quietly inflates the true cost. Second, prefer tools tested on real, complex data over vendor-quoted accuracy, since headline rates rarely survive contact with hard B2B profiles.

The full comparison table

For the bulk workflow end to end, see our guide to finding phone numbers in bulk, and for verifying the numbers before you dial, see data verification. To enrich from other starting points, the Google scraping and website crawler tutorials pair well with phone enrichment.

The verdict

On hard, real-world profiles, Derrick delivers the best value in B2B phone enrichment: a 91% success rate at around EUR 0.30 per number, inside the Google Sheets workflow most teams already run. ProntoHQ wins on raw accuracy if budget is no constraint, and Zeliq is the cheapest credible option, but for the everyday job of turning a list of LinkedIn leads into verified, dial-ready numbers, Derrick is the tool that does not make you choose between hit rate and cost.

Common mistakes when choosing a phone enrichment tool

• Buying on subscription price. The headline plan is not the cost that matters. A low monthly price with a poor hit rate leaves most of your quota unusable, so the real cost per working number is far higher than it looks. Always divide the plan by the numbers actually found.
• Trusting vendor-quoted accuracy. Marketing pages quote hit rates measured on easy data. Those numbers rarely survive contact with hard B2B profiles from large corporations and public institutions, which is exactly why we tested on that kind of list.
• Skipping verification. A returned number is not always a reachable one. Even a strong tool benefits from a line-type and validity check before your reps dial, so they do not burn time on dead or switchboard numbers.
• One tool for every geography. Hit rates swing by region because consent and data rules differ. A tool that excels in one market can underperform in another, so test on the geographies you actually sell into.
• Optimising for quota, not quality. A huge quota at a low price is a false economy if accuracy is weak. Coverage you cannot trust costs more in wasted calls than it saves on subscription.

The throughline is simple: measure the real cost of a usable number, on your own data, before you commit. The Free tier on a tool like Derrick exists precisely so you can run that test without paying first.

Why phone enrichment hit rates vary so much

The same tool can return 90% on one list and half that on another, which is why a single headline accuracy figure is misleading. A few factors drive the swing.

Geography and consent rules. Coverage is usually strongest in the US and lower across parts of Europe, where consent requirements restrict how mobile numbers can be stored and shared. A tool tuned for one market is not automatically strong in another. Profile difficulty. Senior people at large corporations and public institutions are harder to match than mid-level contacts at small companies, so a test on easy data flatters every vendor. Data freshness. People change roles and numbers constantly, so a database refreshed months ago carries a growing share of dead records; a lookup performed live at query time avoids most of that decay. Input quality. A clean, complete input (accurate name plus a valid LinkedIn URL) lifts every tool's hit rate, while messy inputs drag it down regardless of the provider.

The practical takeaway is to test any tool on a sample of your own real list, in your own geography, before committing budget. A vendor's average means little next to the hit rate you get on the contacts you actually need to reach.

FAQ: phone enrichment tools