Email Enrichment Benchmark 2027: 7 Email Finders, 1,000 B2B Leads

TL;DR

• WizLeads: 670 verified-valid emails from 1,000 B2B leads, the most of the seven finders we tested, with zero invalid.
• Wiza: 671 emails found, matching WizLeads on volume, but 38 were invalid, which left 633.
• The other five: from 587 valid emails (Findymail) down to 259 (Prospeo), a 2.3x spread on the same list.
• Mailbox tags: WizLeads was the only finder in the test that tagged the mailbox provider and Secure Email Gateway (SEG) on every row. On this list, 81 leads (8.1%) sat behind an SEG.

Email finders usually sell on accuracy, the share of their returned emails that pass verification. We wanted the number that decides how many people you can email. So we gave seven finders the same 1,000 B2B leads on the same day and verified every returned email through an email verifier.

How does the email find rate vary between enrichment vendors?

Widely. In our test, the find rate ran from 67.0% (WizLeads) down to 25.9% (Prospeo), and the average was 50.7%. We define the find rate as verified-valid emails per 1,000 input leads. So the top finder returned 2.6x as many usable emails as the bottom one.

WizLeads was the only finder whose returned emails all passed verification. Each of the other six returned between 11 (Prospeo) and 38 (Wiza) invalid emails.

Why rank finders by valid emails per 1,000 leads?

Because accuracy leaves out the leads a finder misses. In our test, every finder passed at least 94.3% of the emails it returned. Yet the count of valid emails per 1,000 leads ran from 259 to 670. Prospeo passed 95.9% of its 270 emails and still left you with only 259 usable addresses. WizLeads passed 100% of its 670. So we ranked all seven on one number: verified-valid emails returned per 1,000 input leads.

On a clean B2B list, the gap between the top and bottom finder was more than 400 valid emails. That gap decides whether one finder is enough or whether you need to layer a second one on top.

How did we run the test?

We pulled 1,000 random followers from Clay.com's LinkedIn page. We chose this list for variety. It mixes job titles: founders, ops, sales, marketing and engineering. Company sizes run from early-stage to enterprise. The leads are spread across the US, Europe, APAC and Latin America. It is the kind of list a B2B team builds from LinkedIn before outreach.

In April 2026, we sent every lead to seven finder APIs on one day: WizLeads, Wiza, Findymail, Kitt (Kitt AI), LeadMagic, IcyPeas and Prospeo. Each finder got the same three inputs: first name, last name and company domain.

All the emails were then verified through an email verifier. It ran for all seven finders on the same day, against the same MX records. We ignored each finder's own "valid" flag. Using it would have biased the test toward whichever finder verifies most conservatively. Valid means the verifier confirmed that the mailbox exists and accepts mail. Invalid means the address was rejected or bounced at the SMTP layer.

We logged each finder's email, the merged best email and the verdict on every row, all in the raw data at the end of this post.

How did each finder do?

The chart below splits each finder's returned emails into the part that passed verification and the part that bounced on verify. It uses the same data as the table above and shows at a glance how much of each finder's output you could use.

WizLeads

670 found, 670 valid, 0 invalid.

Every email WizLeads returned passed the SMTP check. WizLeads' email enrichment checks each mailbox before it returns a result, so an address that does not accept mail never leaves the API. Run your own list through it and you get the same SMTP-checked output that produced this row. WizLeads also tags the mailbox provider (Google, Microsoft or a named provider) and the SEG on every row. For most uses, you can load the list straight into a sequencer without a separate verification pass.

Wiza

671 found, 633 valid, 38 invalid.

Wiza tied with WizLeads for the highest emails-found count. It also had the highest invalid count in the test: 38 of its emails bounced on verify. Wiza is volume-first. It casts a wide net and returns whatever it can match, including pattern-based guesses on domains it has not fully resolved. That makes it a strong pick if you run a verifier on top, and a weaker one if you plan to send straight from its output.

Findymail

615 found, 587 valid, 28 invalid.

Findymail was the strongest middle-tier finder in the test. It handled smaller and international domains better than Kitt, LeadMagic, IcyPeas and Prospeo. WizLeads also returned valid emails on Indonesian, Saudi Arabian and Filipino domains in this test. On a list with many non-US leads, Findymail makes a useful second source behind WizLeads.

Kitt

537 found, 517 valid, 20 invalid.

Kitt gave predictable mid-tier coverage and rarely surprised. Its pool was smaller, but consistent.

LeadMagic

477 found, 464 valid, 13 invalid.

LeadMagic sat at the lower end of coverage in the test. Of the six finders that cleared 400 valid emails, it returned the second-smallest number. If you already run WizLeads as your main finder, LeadMagic adds little extra coverage.

IcyPeas

434 found, 418 valid, 16 invalid.

IcyPeas is a conservative finder. It only returns emails it can confidently match to the company domain, which keeps its pool small but predictable. It works better as a sanity-check layer than as a main source.

Prospeo

270 found, 259 valid, 11 invalid.

Prospeo had the lowest coverage in the test. Its find rate stayed between 26% and 28% whether a lead's domain was a country-code one or a generic one, so it ran low across the whole list. Use it only as a niche addition, after your first and second finders.

What kind of inboxes are you about to send to?

Most finder outputs leave this question open. WizLeads tags each row with the mailbox provider it detects at the SMTP layer. The tags cover Google, Microsoft, the major SEGs and smaller named providers. The chart shows the mix on our 1,000 leads.

The slice to watch is the 8.1% behind a Secure Email Gateway. That is 81 of the 1,000 leads. Proofpoint guarded 40 of them, Mimecast 20, Cisco 11, Barracuda 5, Sophos 3 and Trend Micro 2. Of the seven finders, only WizLeads identified them on the row. The other six returned the email and moved on. From their output, you would have no way to know which leads an SEG would inspect before delivery.

That matters when you send and when you verify. Our email verification benchmark tested the same SEG signal from the verifier side. SEG-protected mailboxes are usually the mid-market and enterprise prospects on a list, your highest-value targets. They reward warmer sending, cleaner authentication (SPF, DKIM and DMARC alignment) and slower throttling. You can only give them that treatment if you know which leads they are.

What surprised us was the 14% "other or unidentified" slice. On a B2B list you expect Google and Microsoft to lead, and they did, with 74.1% combined. But almost one in seven leads used a provider the tags did not name. That group is where Findymail, Wiza and WizLeads pulled away from the rest. On those 140 leads, Wiza found 66 emails, WizLeads 47 and Findymail 46. None of the other four found more than 23.

Which finder should you choose for your list?

Match your list to one of three patterns.

1. One finder, clean output. If you want one finder that returns send-ready emails with no separate verification step, this benchmark points to WizLeads. It returned 670 valid emails per 1,000 leads with zero invalid. It also tagged the mailbox provider and SEG on every row.

2. The widest coverage, verified afterwards. If you will run a verifier over every finder's output, the highest combined coverage in this test came from three layers. WizLeads goes first, Findymail backfills the long tail, and Wiza or LeadMagic covers the rows still missing. Budget for the verification step: Wiza alone returned 38 invalid emails per 1,000 leads.

3. Careful enrichment of a small list. If you work a small, high-value list and would sooner miss a lead than send to a bad address, add IcyPeas as a sanity check behind WizLeads. When both returned an email in this test, they gave the same address for 409 of 422 leads. That gives you two independent confirmations on the rows that matter. The false-positive risk on either side is extremely low.

Reproduce the test

The full benchmark is a public Google Sheet, so you can rerun any slice of the analysis on your own setup.

In the WizLeads Email Enrichment Benchmark sheet, the Summary tab has the scoreboard, the mailbox provider mix and notes on each finder. The Raw Data tab has all 1,000 input leads. Each row shows every finder's returned email, the merged best email, the mailbox provider tag and the verdict. You can also download the sheet as an XLSX file.