Apollo.io vs Lusha
Eleven of fourteen models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; zero named Lusha. Both were named by all fourteen models and Apollo.io carries 72 labels and Lusha 45, so the shares are not directly comparable.
San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty-six categories this edition.
By Lusha Systems, Boston, United States, founded 2016. Named in five categories this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the data enrichment page.
By framing
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLusha
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Apollo.io and Lusha were named in the same answer 316 times, of the 1056 answers naming Apollo.io and the 340 naming Lusha. In those answers Lusha took the first choice five times and Apollo.io 161.
Every model, every framing
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | | ||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | | ||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | | | | |
| Perplexity Sonar | | | | | ||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | | ||
| Mistral Small | | | | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | | | | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | | | | |||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | | ||
| Kimi K2 | | | | | | |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | | | |
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | | | |
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | | | |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | | | | |
Apollo.io Lusha first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Lusha on the right.The direct prompt
Apollo.io first, Lusha an alternative
11 of 14 modelsLusha was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
1 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
Apollo.io77%#1 of 10Lusha2%#4 of 10Apollo.io73%#1 of 12Lusha2%#6 of 12What the models said about Apollo.io
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.
“data accuracy and billing are the top pain points at scale” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · hard negative
What the models said about Lusha
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of five in this category shown.
“Low email accuracy: Independent checks suggest only about 68% email return at roughly 82% accuracy, which is below industry standards.” Mistral Small · negative prompt · hard negative
“Tools that have faced regulatory actions (e.g., Lusha's Italy fine) should be avoided in sensitive jurisdictions.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · hard negative
“Some users report issues with outdated contact information and relatively high pricing for infrequent use.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Safer bets from reviews: Tools like Lusha (98% email accuracy, free tier)” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · first choice
“Apollo.io or Lusha are the right entry points. Both offer free tiers” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.