Finding the best mobile data provider for your outbound motion is essential for any sales team. You need to balance accurate coverage and cost, but those two don’t often pair well.
Most providers are either exorbitant in price or have horrible coverage. And getting inaccurate numbers means that your sales reps end up wasting hours of time. With connect rates plummeting, budget cuts, and increased pipeline demands, accurate coverage at an affordable cost is more important than ever.
As the founding outbound sales rep at ServiceBell, I had to purchase annual contracts with several data providers to maximize coverage. Provider A may have had 20% coverage that provider B didn’t have, and vice versa—so I ended up spending more to get full coverage.
If you’ve found yourself in a similar situation, you’re in the right place. I personally tested seven different data providers available in Clay’s waterfall feature: Apollo, Clay’s mobile number integration, Nimbler, Datagma, ContactOut, Forager, and Lead Magic.
Regardless of our test results, the TLDR is: Any single provider alone isn’t enough to fuel your outbound motion anymore.
If you ask me which provider to use, my answer is “all of them.” To maximize coverage and minimize price, waterfall every possible data provider with Clay.
Test Overview
This section walks through our testing methodology and an overview of the results. Then we’ll drill into a provider-by-provider comparison, and conclude our case for data waterfalls over a single provider.
.avif)
Disclaimer
These results will vary greatly depending on your industry and persona. For example, data providers probably have lower coverage for IT folks at cybersecurity companies than salespeople at sales tech companies.
It’s also important to remember that these are all great data providers. Our goal here is not to knock any one provider, but rather to show a transparent report comparing providers so you can make the most informed decision. If you must only choose one provider, we want to shed some light on the best provider for you—but really, you should be using waterfalls if you can.
Testing Methodology
First, we pulled a list of 1,998 sales and marketing contacts in the computer software industry from Apollo, which we included on our comparison test. We like Apollo for creating early-stage prospect lists. (For clarity, we didn’t use Apollo’s mobile filter, we just exported a list of contacts that included mobile numbers.)
Then, we ran the same list through four other data providers in Clay.
Here are all of the providers we tested:
- Apollo
- Clay’s mobile number integration
- Nimbler
- Datagma
- ContactOut
- Forager
- Lead Magic
A team member then had the fun job of calling every number on the list…five times.
We tracked:
- Confirmed pickups by the intended recipient
- Confirmed voicemails (containing the intended recipient’s name)
- Unconfirmable voicemails (“please leave a message” without any specific name)
- Bad numbers (not in service or wrong person)
Results Overview
We ran 1,998 prospects through seven rounds of enrichment (meaning, we ran each of the 1,998 prospects through each data provider, a total of seven times.) We enriched (or at least attempted to enrich) their information a total of 13,986 times.
Out of the 13,986 potential opportunities we had to find mobile numbers across 7 providers and 1,998 prospects, we found 5,454 numbers (39% coverage).
We were only able to confirm 36% of our list of numbers (1,972 numbers) as accurate. Out of the 64% of numbers that weren’t confirmed as accurate, 47% went to generic voicemails, and the other 17% were confirmed incorrect.
After calling 5,454 numbers, we only had 228 actual pickups—that’s only a 4.2% pickup rate.
The pickup rates are incredibly low, but that’s the state of outbound cold calling in 2024. People used to pick up far more often, but due to significant increase in sales call volume (noise) and the rise of the “Spam Risk” caller ID feature on most phones, people pick up far less often than even several years prior.
According to Business Insider, mobile carriers began using machine learning to track phone numbers with suspicious patterns in an effort to shield customers from unwanted phone calls.
For efficiency’s sake, it might be worth validating mobile numbers before passing them to your sales reps, and/or investing in parallel dialers to pump through numbers faster.
Otherwise, your reps are going to spend tons of time manually calling numbers—65% of which are likely inaccurate. Even the correct numbers will only answer 10% of the time…and your reps will only book 10-15% of those pickups. Efficiency is key.
In summary:
- We enriched 1998 prospects across 7 providers (13,986 enrichments)
- The 7 providers returned 5,454 numbers (~39% coverage)
- 36% of those 5,454 numbers were confirmed as correct
- Only 4.2% of the 4,793 numbers picked up the phone
- Confirming mobiles before calling increased connect rates by nearly 3x (from 3.7% to 11.8%)
Mobile Provider Breakdown
Now, let’s break these numbers down by provider.
And here's a chart view where we depict total correct numbers, unconfirmed numbers, and wrong numbers by data provider.
Best overall accurate prospect coverage: Datagma
In the last section, we highlighted the accuracy of the numbers provided…but we only considered the accurate numbers a fraction of the many numbers we could enrich.
However, it’s also important to consider accurate numbers as a fraction of our total attempted prospects.
That is, out of a list of 100 people, how many accurate numbers could we find, as opposed to a list of 100 numbers?
At the end of the day, overall accurate coverage is a huge factor for most companies, and arguably more critical than just number accuracy alone. It’s better to have a list of 1000 numbers where 300 of them are accurate than a list of 5 numbers where 4 of them are accurate.
Datagma is the best provider for overall accurate coverage. Out of the 1998 prospects we enriched, we could find accurate numbers for 32.33% of them, which is well beyond the accurate coverage of any other provider—10x more accurate coverage than Apollo, and ~3x more than Nimbler.
If pure coverage and accuracy are all you care about, Datagma is the way to go. However, in terms of credits used, Datagma is the most expensive provider in Clay by far.
Datagma costs 25 Clay credits. On the pro plan with an $800/month subscription, you’re paying $0.016 per Clay credit, or $0.40 per number from Datagma. With their accuracy rates, that means you’re paying ~$0.90 per accurate number.
ContactOut comes in close second regarding accurate coverage, but they’re also quite expensive ($0.81 per accurate number).
Most accurate provider: Forager
Although Forager’s overall prospect coverage was quite low compared to other leading providers, their accurate hit rate was the highest amongst providers.
In other words, they didn’t return mobile numbers often, but when a mobile was returned, Forager had the highest mobile number accuracy.
While this isn’t ideal for those who care about maximizing TAM (Total Addressable Market) penetration, it’s especially helpful for those who want to minimize wasted rep time calling bad numbers.
I’d recommend using Forager as the first provider in your waterfall. If they return a number, you can be confident in its accuracy, and if not, on to the next provider.
Best price per accurate number: Nimbler
Nimbler’s overall accurate coverage is only 11.16%, but their cost per accurate mobile is also only $0.087. Datagma offers twice the accurate coverage at 9x the price. If you’re looking for an economical solution, Nimbler could be a good choice.
Overall Prospect Coverage vs Number Accuracy
There are two primary stats we’re looking for here: overall accurate coverage of our prospect list, and the accuracy of numbers returned.
Some providers may provide a number for almost every single prospect, but only 10% of those numbers are accurate. Another provider may not provide many numbers, but the numbers they do provide are highly accurate. The accuracy rate of numbers provided is important if you don’t want your sales team wasting time calling wrong numbers.
On the other hand, you also need to consider overall accurate coverage. In fact, this is probably the most important metric to consider. Even if a provider has a lower provided number accuracy rate, they still can have higher overall coverage of accurate prospect phone numbers. For example, Provider A’s numbers may only be 30% accurate, but they provide 1000 numbers out of 1000 prospects, whereas Provider B’s numbers are 100% accurate, but they only give you 200 numbers out of 1000 prospects. In this case, despite Provider B having 100% number accuracy, they only had 20% overall prospect coverage, whereas provider B had 30% prospect coverage (50% more than Provider A).
In a perfect world, you find a provider that offers both, but they’re hard to come by, and often expensive.
Pricing and features of each mobile number provider
Apollo
Apollo is a great B2B data provider that I use all the time. However, I usually don’t recommend them for mobile numbers, as Apollo’s mobile coverage and accuracy is seemingly lower than the other providers in our test. However, Apollo has a broad database of accounts and contacts, making it easy to build initial source lists ready for further refinement in Clay. At Sculpted, we use Apollo to source raw account lists, which we then further enrich with Clay, and then import back into Apollo for contact discovery. However, I wouldn't go with Apollo alone for mobile data.
Nimbler
Nimbler is a great mobile data provider for those who want to balance coverage, accuracy, and cost. Although Datagma has 2x more accurate coverage than Nimbler, Datagma numbers are also 9x the price. You’re paying an extraordinary amount more per valid number than you are with Nimbler, and Nimbler still has decent coverage, making it the overall best option and my first choice for enriching mobile data, especially if budget is a concern.
ContactOut
ContactOut is a great choice for those who want to maximize accurate data coverage, and have the extra bankroll to afford the luxury of premium mobile data. ContactOut came in close second in our test of five providers when it came to accurate mobile data coverage, and a close second in cost as well.
Datagma
Datagma is the best provider on our list when it comes to overall accurate mobile coverage, but they’re also the most expensive, clocking in at ~$.91 per accurate mobile number. If you’re interested in maximizing your GTM team’s mobile coverage, Datagma is the provider for you, as long as you’re willing to pay the price for such accurate data.
Clay
Clay’s native mobile provider integration came in third in terms of overall accurate mobile coverage of our prospect list, beating even Nimbler, but due to a slightly lower accurate number rate (Clay = ~32% whereas Nimbler = ~37%), Nimbler still has a cheaper overall cost per number.
It’s worth noting, however, that while Clay’s specific mobile integration is only 3rd, the Clay platform unlocks access to all of the data providers in our lineup here, and more, so you can waterfall providers and unlock the best coverage at the cheapest price.
Forager
Forager came in first in terms of its mobile accuracy but ranked quite poorly on overall prospect coverage. If you care about mobile accuracy, Forager should be your top choice, but it shouldn’t be the sole provider you’re reliant upon for mobile data due to its low overall coverage.
Lead Magic
Lead Magic's combination of correct numbers and cost-efficiency makes it a compelling choice. This makes Lead Magic an excellent option for teams looking for a balance between cost and performance. It’s best suited for campaigns that require accurate contact information and direct prospect engagement without incurring high costs.
Tips to maximize accurate coverage & minimize cost
I’m running Clay-powered outbound motions for leading brands like Sendoso. I’d like to share some insights around how we’ve approached mobile data enrichment with Clay, to maximize coverage and minimize price.
Data Waterfalls
Waterfall enrichment is a method for enriching leads that use multiple mobile data providers as data sources instead of just one.
.avif)
It’s simple: If Provider A cannot find emails for certain leads, you go to B. If you still have gaps, you switch to C, etc.
Waterfall enrichment way ensures you get the most accurate leads’ information and maximize enrichment coverage.
The manual alternatives to waterfall enrichment waste time and money:
- You'll have coverage gaps if you use a single email list provider.
- If you run your entire list through multiple providers, you waste money by paying multiple times for the same data.
- If you try to replicate the waterfall process manually, you will undertake a time-consuming process, uploading increasingly smaller CSVs to data providers one at a time.
Clay’s waterfall enrichment features can help you get comprehensive data across multiple providers in just one click. Visit this link to learn more.
Only enrich high-intent leads
Instead of enriching every single lead with a mobile number, we only focus on high-intent leads.
Here’s how it works. We send emails with Smartlead, which has an awesome API. We created a workflow that triggers when a prospect has opened a cold email at least twice or replied with interest.
For us, this is a sign of “intent”. Then, we push those prospects back into Clay via a Smartlead webhook. We run those prospects through a mobile data waterfall, and then push an enriched number to Outreach for an SDR to cold call.
This way, we’re only attempting to enrich mobile numbers when a prospect has already engaged with an email multiple times.
Prioritize data providers by prospect
Taking things a step further, if you really want to get creative, you can set up custom logic based on the prospect’s seniority and how important they are to reach.
For example, you could consider the following:
- How qualified is this account?
- How senior is this prospect?
- How interested are they, based on their engagement history?
Once you have this model defined, you can push the leads to a master table.
Using a series of AI prompts and looking up account scores, etc., you can determine the prospect’s priority as high or low and push them to the appropriate Clay table.
One table enriches high-intent leads, and prioritizes Datagma and DropContact, while the leads of lower importance are enriched in a table that prioritizes cheaper providers like Nimbler.
With this flow configured, you’ll only enrich prospects that have shown interest—and use expensive providers on prospects who you really want to talk to. For lower priority prospects, you can use cheaper providers.
Finding the best mobile data provider for your outbound motion is essential for any sales team. You need to balance accurate coverage and cost, but those two don’t often pair well.
Most providers are either exorbitant in price or have horrible coverage. And getting inaccurate numbers means that your sales reps end up wasting hours of time. With connect rates plummeting, budget cuts, and increased pipeline demands, accurate coverage at an affordable cost is more important than ever.
As the founding outbound sales rep at ServiceBell, I had to purchase annual contracts with several data providers to maximize coverage. Provider A may have had 20% coverage that provider B didn’t have, and vice versa—so I ended up spending more to get full coverage.
If you’ve found yourself in a similar situation, you’re in the right place. I personally tested seven different data providers available in Clay’s waterfall feature: Apollo, Clay’s mobile number integration, Nimbler, Datagma, ContactOut, Forager, and Lead Magic.
Regardless of our test results, the TLDR is: Any single provider alone isn’t enough to fuel your outbound motion anymore.
If you ask me which provider to use, my answer is “all of them.” To maximize coverage and minimize price, waterfall every possible data provider with Clay.
Test Overview
This section walks through our testing methodology and an overview of the results. Then we’ll drill into a provider-by-provider comparison, and conclude our case for data waterfalls over a single provider.
Disclaimer
These results will vary greatly depending on your industry and persona. For example, data providers probably have lower coverage for IT folks at cybersecurity companies than salespeople at sales tech companies.
It’s also important to remember that these are all great data providers. Our goal here is not to knock any one provider, but rather to show a transparent report comparing providers so you can make the most informed decision. If you must only choose one provider, we want to shed some light on the best provider for you—but really, you should be using waterfalls if you can.
Testing Methodology
First, we pulled a list of 1,998 sales and marketing contacts in the computer software industry from Apollo, which we included on our comparison test. We like Apollo for creating early-stage prospect lists. (For clarity, we didn’t use Apollo’s mobile filter, we just exported a list of contacts that included mobile numbers.)
Then, we ran the same list through four other data providers in Clay.
Here are all of the providers we tested:
- Apollo
- Clay’s mobile number integration
- Nimbler
- Datagma
- ContactOut
- Forager
- Lead Magic
A team member then had the fun job of calling every number on the list…five times.
We tracked:
- Confirmed pickups by the intended recipient
- Confirmed voicemails (containing the intended recipient’s name)
- Unconfirmable voicemails (“please leave a message” without any specific name)
- Bad numbers (not in service or wrong person)
Results Overview
We ran 1,998 prospects through seven rounds of enrichment (meaning, we ran each of the 1,998 prospects through each data provider, a total of seven times.) We enriched (or at least attempted to enrich) their information a total of 13,986 times.
Out of the 13,986 potential opportunities we had to find mobile numbers across 7 providers and 1,998 prospects, we found 5,454 numbers (39% coverage).
We were only able to confirm 36% of our list of numbers (1,972 numbers) as accurate. Out of the 64% of numbers that weren’t confirmed as accurate, 47% went to generic voicemails, and the other 17% were confirmed incorrect.
After calling 5,454 numbers, we only had 228 actual pickups—that’s only a 4.2% pickup rate.
The pickup rates are incredibly low, but that’s the state of outbound cold calling in 2024. People used to pick up far more often, but due to significant increase in sales call volume (noise) and the rise of the “Spam Risk” caller ID feature on most phones, people pick up far less often than even several years prior.
According to Business Insider, mobile carriers began using machine learning to track phone numbers with suspicious patterns in an effort to shield customers from unwanted phone calls.
For efficiency’s sake, it might be worth validating mobile numbers before passing them to your sales reps, and/or investing in parallel dialers to pump through numbers faster.
Otherwise, your reps are going to spend tons of time manually calling numbers—65% of which are likely inaccurate. Even the correct numbers will only answer 10% of the time…and your reps will only book 10-15% of those pickups. Efficiency is key.
In summary:
- We enriched 1998 prospects across 7 providers (13,986 enrichments)
- The 7 providers returned 5,454 numbers (~39% coverage)
- 36% of those 5,454 numbers were confirmed as correct
- Only 4.2% of the 4,793 numbers picked up the phone
- Confirming mobiles before calling increased connect rates by nearly 3x (from 3.7% to 11.8%)
Mobile Provider Breakdown
Now, let’s break these numbers down by provider.
And here's a chart view where we depict total correct numbers, unconfirmed numbers, and wrong numbers by data provider.
Best overall accurate prospect coverage: Datagma
In the last section, we highlighted the accuracy of the numbers provided…but we only considered the accurate numbers a fraction of the many numbers we could enrich.
However, it’s also important to consider accurate numbers as a fraction of our total attempted prospects.
That is, out of a list of 100 people, how many accurate numbers could we find, as opposed to a list of 100 numbers?
At the end of the day, overall accurate coverage is a huge factor for most companies, and arguably more critical than just number accuracy alone. It’s better to have a list of 1000 numbers where 300 of them are accurate than a list of 5 numbers where 4 of them are accurate.
Datagma is the best provider for overall accurate coverage. Out of the 1998 prospects we enriched, we could find accurate numbers for 32.33% of them, which is well beyond the accurate coverage of any other provider—10x more accurate coverage than Apollo, and ~3x more than Nimbler.
If pure coverage and accuracy are all you care about, Datagma is the way to go. However, in terms of credits used, Datagma is the most expensive provider in Clay by far.
Datagma costs 25 Clay credits. On the pro plan with an $800/month subscription, you’re paying $0.016 per Clay credit, or $0.40 per number from Datagma. With their accuracy rates, that means you’re paying ~$0.90 per accurate number.
ContactOut comes in close second regarding accurate coverage, but they’re also quite expensive ($0.81 per accurate number).
Most accurate provider: Forager
Although Forager’s overall prospect coverage was quite low compared to other leading providers, their accurate hit rate was the highest amongst providers.
In other words, they didn’t return mobile numbers often, but when a mobile was returned, Forager had the highest mobile number accuracy.
While this isn’t ideal for those who care about maximizing TAM (Total Addressable Market) penetration, it’s especially helpful for those who want to minimize wasted rep time calling bad numbers.
I’d recommend using Forager as the first provider in your waterfall. If they return a number, you can be confident in its accuracy, and if not, on to the next provider.
Best price per accurate number: Nimbler
Nimbler’s overall accurate coverage is only 11.16%, but their cost per accurate mobile is also only $0.087. Datagma offers twice the accurate coverage at 9x the price. If you’re looking for an economical solution, Nimbler could be a good choice.
Overall Prospect Coverage vs Number Accuracy
There are two primary stats we’re looking for here: overall accurate coverage of our prospect list, and the accuracy of numbers returned.
Some providers may provide a number for almost every single prospect, but only 10% of those numbers are accurate. Another provider may not provide many numbers, but the numbers they do provide are highly accurate. The accuracy rate of numbers provided is important if you don’t want your sales team wasting time calling wrong numbers.
On the other hand, you also need to consider overall accurate coverage. In fact, this is probably the most important metric to consider. Even if a provider has a lower provided number accuracy rate, they still can have higher overall coverage of accurate prospect phone numbers. For example, Provider A’s numbers may only be 30% accurate, but they provide 1000 numbers out of 1000 prospects, whereas Provider B’s numbers are 100% accurate, but they only give you 200 numbers out of 1000 prospects. In this case, despite Provider B having 100% number accuracy, they only had 20% overall prospect coverage, whereas provider B had 30% prospect coverage (50% more than Provider A).
In a perfect world, you find a provider that offers both, but they’re hard to come by, and often expensive.
Pricing and features of each mobile number provider
Apollo
Apollo is a great B2B data provider that I use all the time. However, I usually don’t recommend them for mobile numbers, as Apollo’s mobile coverage and accuracy is seemingly lower than the other providers in our test. However, Apollo has a broad database of accounts and contacts, making it easy to build initial source lists ready for further refinement in Clay. At Sculpted, we use Apollo to source raw account lists, which we then further enrich with Clay, and then import back into Apollo for contact discovery. However, I wouldn't go with Apollo alone for mobile data.
Nimbler
Nimbler is a great mobile data provider for those who want to balance coverage, accuracy, and cost. Although Datagma has 2x more accurate coverage than Nimbler, Datagma numbers are also 9x the price. You’re paying an extraordinary amount more per valid number than you are with Nimbler, and Nimbler still has decent coverage, making it the overall best option and my first choice for enriching mobile data, especially if budget is a concern.
ContactOut
ContactOut is a great choice for those who want to maximize accurate data coverage, and have the extra bankroll to afford the luxury of premium mobile data. ContactOut came in close second in our test of five providers when it came to accurate mobile data coverage, and a close second in cost as well.
Datagma
Datagma is the best provider on our list when it comes to overall accurate mobile coverage, but they’re also the most expensive, clocking in at ~$.91 per accurate mobile number. If you’re interested in maximizing your GTM team’s mobile coverage, Datagma is the provider for you, as long as you’re willing to pay the price for such accurate data.
Clay
Clay’s native mobile provider integration came in third in terms of overall accurate mobile coverage of our prospect list, beating even Nimbler, but due to a slightly lower accurate number rate (Clay = ~32% whereas Nimbler = ~37%), Nimbler still has a cheaper overall cost per number.
It’s worth noting, however, that while Clay’s specific mobile integration is only 3rd, the Clay platform unlocks access to all of the data providers in our lineup here, and more, so you can waterfall providers and unlock the best coverage at the cheapest price.
Forager
Forager came in first in terms of its mobile accuracy but ranked quite poorly on overall prospect coverage. If you care about mobile accuracy, Forager should be your top choice, but it shouldn’t be the sole provider you’re reliant upon for mobile data due to its low overall coverage.
Lead Magic
Lead Magic's combination of correct numbers and cost-efficiency makes it a compelling choice. This makes Lead Magic an excellent option for teams looking for a balance between cost and performance. It’s best suited for campaigns that require accurate contact information and direct prospect engagement without incurring high costs.
Tips to maximize accurate coverage & minimize cost
I’m running Clay-powered outbound motions for leading brands like Sendoso. I’d like to share some insights around how we’ve approached mobile data enrichment with Clay, to maximize coverage and minimize price.
Data Waterfalls
Waterfall enrichment is a method for enriching leads that use multiple mobile data providers as data sources instead of just one.
It’s simple: If Provider A cannot find emails for certain leads, you go to B. If you still have gaps, you switch to C, etc.
Waterfall enrichment way ensures you get the most accurate leads’ information and maximize enrichment coverage.
The manual alternatives to waterfall enrichment waste time and money:
- You'll have coverage gaps if you use a single email list provider.
- If you run your entire list through multiple providers, you waste money by paying multiple times for the same data.
- If you try to replicate the waterfall process manually, you will undertake a time-consuming process, uploading increasingly smaller CSVs to data providers one at a time.
Clay’s waterfall enrichment features can help you get comprehensive data across multiple providers in just one click. Visit this link to learn more.
Only enrich high-intent leads
Instead of enriching every single lead with a mobile number, we only focus on high-intent leads.
Here’s how it works. We send emails with Smartlead, which has an awesome API. We created a workflow that triggers when a prospect has opened a cold email at least twice or replied with interest.
For us, this is a sign of “intent”. Then, we push those prospects back into Clay via a Smartlead webhook. We run those prospects through a mobile data waterfall, and then push an enriched number to Outreach for an SDR to cold call.
This way, we’re only attempting to enrich mobile numbers when a prospect has already engaged with an email multiple times.
Prioritize data providers by prospect
Taking things a step further, if you really want to get creative, you can set up custom logic based on the prospect’s seniority and how important they are to reach.
For example, you could consider the following:
- How qualified is this account?
- How senior is this prospect?
- How interested are they, based on their engagement history?
Once you have this model defined, you can push the leads to a master table.
Using a series of AI prompts and looking up account scores, etc., you can determine the prospect’s priority as high or low and push them to the appropriate Clay table.
One table enriches high-intent leads, and prioritizes Datagma and DropContact, while the leads of lower importance are enriched in a table that prioritizes cheaper providers like Nimbler.
With this flow configured, you’ll only enrich prospects that have shown interest—and use expensive providers on prospects who you really want to talk to. For lower priority prospects, you can use cheaper providers.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.avif)
