---
title: "ZoomInfo and Clearbit vs entity resolution"
summary: "A different product, not a competitor. They sell contacts and firmographics; we resolve identity."
canonical_url: https://entitybind.com/compare/zoominfo-and-clearbit
last_updated: 2026-10-12
copy: full
---

# ZoomInfo and Clearbit vs entity resolution

> A different product, not a competitor. They sell contacts and firmographics; we resolve identity.

Canonical page: https://entitybind.com/compare/zoominfo-and-clearbit
Last updated: 2026-10-12

## Entity Bind vs Enrichment vendors

A different product, not a competitor. They sell contacts and firmographics; we resolve identity.

This page is about scope, not competition. That category does work we do not do and could not do, and nothing here substitutes for it. Entity Bind sits underneath it: we decide which company a row actually is, so the work on top runs against a resolved company instead of a spelling.

Your company master has to survive somebody else’s audit, and every merge in it needs a reason a person outside your team can read. This page compares on that axis: what each side is for, where the alternative is stronger, and what we would do in your place.

Enrichment vendors: Contacts, titles, intent and firmographics wired into a CRM. A different product, and the right one for a revenue team. Entity Bind: No people data, ever. We decide whether the company profile is attached to the right company, and cite the register that says so.

- Our recommendation: Different job
- Rows to Enrichment vendors: 5 of 12
- Rows to Entity Bind: 7 of 12
- Rows genuinely even: 0

Settle it on your own data: A sample with the matches your current process already produced. We accept, withhold or contradict each one, with a citation you can open. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1)

Self-service. Create your workspace online and verify your email to start matching company records. Free starts with 300 credits and no card. Paid monthly plans are available in workspace Billing; VAT is added where applicable. Usage is tracked without automatic overage charges. [Trust and security](https://entitybind.com/trust)

5 of the 12 rows in the table below go to Enrichment vendors and 7 go to Entity Bind. The rows on their side are the reason to keep what you already run; the rows on ours are what we would add beside it.

By [James Rooney](https://entitybind.com/about), founder of Entity Bind · Last revised 12 October 2026

## The short answer

If your question is who to call at a company, an enrichment vendor answers it and we do not. ZoomInfo and Clearbit sell go-to-market data: contacts, job titles, email addresses and phone numbers, firmographic profiles, technographics and buying intent, wired into a CRM so a revenue team can work a list. Entity Bind sells none of that and never will — company and organisation identity only, no people, no contact data, no intent, and personal fields that registers volunteer are dropped at the ingestion boundary rather than stored. The two products meet at exactly one point: enrichment attaches a company profile to your row, and something has to decide that the profile is about the right company. That decision is what we sell, and it is the part of the workflow that nobody in the enrichment category publishes a denominator for.

The answer for your own rows needs your own rows: a few hundred of them, with the matches you already have beside them. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1)

## What Entity Bind adds beside Enrichment vendors

Run both, and this is the half we do. Each of these is a job the other side of this page is not built for.

- Your enriched rows are wrong somewhere and you need to know which ones, with evidence.
- The legal name, the register record and the company number matter — contracting, onboarding, payments, reporting.
- You need a citation per field, with the licence and the age of the value attached.
- You need to know what you are permitted to store rather than merely display.
- You would rather have a documented refusal than a plausible profile on the rows that carry money.

A stewardship queue and a supplier file before a payment run want different halves of that list. Create your Free workspace to inspect your own rows, or contact us for a guided review of the checks your workflow needs. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1)

## The case for Enrichment vendors

Read these before the table. On some evaluations one of them settles the question on its own, and if it settles yours, keep what you have and put us beside it.

- Contacts, titles, emails and phone numbers at a scale we hold none of — by design and by legal choice, since warehousing deep people records is a category of risk we have deliberately stayed out of.
- Firmographic breadth: employee counts, revenue estimates, industry codes, technographics and hierarchy for millions of companies, including private ones no open register describes usefully.
- Buying intent and engagement signals, which have no open equivalent and cannot be derived from any register.
- Workflow. Native CRM and marketing-automation integration, list building, form shortening, and web visitor identification — the enrichment happens where the work already happens.
- A commercial model a sales organisation already understands and already budgets for, with seats, credits and an account team.
- Immediate value to a revenue team, which is a thing this product is not and does not try to be.

### Requirements that point to Enrichment vendors

- You need contacts, titles, emails or phone numbers. We have none and will never sell them.
- You need intent data, technographics or firmographic estimates for targeting.
- The buyer is sales or marketing and the deliverable is a working list.
- The cost of an imperfect company match is a mis-targeted email rather than a payment or a contract.
- You want enrichment inside a CRM workflow rather than a decision behind an API.

If one of those is your requirement, say so when you write to us. We will tell you where the answer is Enrichment vendors, and what running Entity Bind beside it would add: an independent verdict on each match, with the register page that supports it. Cheaper for both of us than finding out in month three.

## Entity Bind and Enrichment vendors, dimension by dimension

Every row carries a verdict. 5 go to Enrichment vendors, 7 to Entity Bind and 0 are even. Both columns are filled in on every row, so a verdict can be read against what each side actually does about it.

| Dimension | Enrichment vendors | Entity Bind | Edge |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Contacts and people data | The core of the product: names, titles, emails, phone numbers, seniority, job changes. | None, ever. Scope is company and organisation identity only, and the five personal fields the UK register volunteers on a person with significant control are dropped at ingestion and never reach storage. | Enrichment vendors |
| Firmographic breadth | Millions of company profiles with sizes, revenues, industries and hierarchies, including private companies. | No global company graph, and not building one. Five measured registers and what your tenant has resolved. | Enrichment vendors |
| Intent and technographics | Behavioural and technology signals with no open equivalent. | Nothing. There is no intent, no score and no risk boolean anywhere in the data model, and there must not be one. | Enrichment vendors |
| Where the work happens | Inside the CRM, on the list, in the form, at the moment the rep needs it. | Behind an HTTP API or an MCP tool. There is no CRM app, no marketplace listing and no automatic writeback. | Enrichment vendors |
| Time to value for a revenue team | Same day. A list gets enriched and somebody calls somebody. | A file comes back with decisions, refusals and receipts. Useful to data, finance, compliance and engineering; not to a rep. | Enrichment vendors |
| Authority on the legal entity | A compiled profile, assembled from many sources, presented without a per-field citation. | The register of incorporation wins on a legal name, and that ordering is in the code rather than in a style guide: Companies House, SIRENE, Brønnøysund, Colorado Secretary of State and SEC EDGAR, plus the global LEI system. | Entity Bind |
| Per-field citation and freshness | A profile, refreshed on the vendor's own cycle. | Source id, source URL, retrieved and first-seen dates, last confirmed, confirmation count, licence, resale flag and age in days — on every field. And nothing here revalidates on a cadence: a last-checked date advances only when a resolution re-observes the value. | Entity Bind |
| What you are allowed to store | Commercial terms that generally prohibit building a competing database from the data. | The same restriction, enforced rather than promised: the write path refuses to persist a pass-through fact before any write happens. The two metered commercial vendors wired here hold no key in this deployment and make no request without one. | Entity Bind |
| Deciding which company a row is | A match happens, and the profile arrives. The decision is not the product and is not reported on. | A decision with a published floor, a calibrated confidence and a documented refusal: A match below 0.90 confidence is unrepresentable. The record comes back as an abstention with a ranked shortlist instead. | Entity Bind |
| Accuracy of a company field, checked | Third-party benchmarks of enrichment field accuracy are published by others. We have not audited any of them and quote none as evidence about a named vendor. | Our own probe is on the record instead: this class of metered vendor placed HSBC — 8 Canada Square, London — in Londonderry, New Hampshire, while the free UK register returned the correct address for the same company. Our per-tier rates are published with their denominators, worst row included at 58.10% (61/105). | Entity Bind |
| Identifiers returned | Vendor-internal company identifiers, plus whatever the profile carries. | LEI, company number qualified by its register, CIK, ticker, VAT, EUID, national register numbers and EIN, with D-U-N-S reported as not configured because no wired source supplies it. | Entity Bind |
| Checking the enrichment you already buy | Not the shape of the product. | Send your record with the profile your vendor attached, and it is accepted, withheld or contradicted independently, reported per provider, per jurisdiction and per evidence tier. | Entity Bind |

Our evidence basis: internal fixtures only · independent validation held: none

Three limits sit behind every comparison in this section — what we hold, where we stand and how ready we are — and the [comparison hub](https://entitybind.com/compare#not-a-contest) states all three at full size. The figures in our own column were measured on internal fixtures; the [accuracy page](https://entitybind.com/accuracy) carries the method and the population behind each one.

### What we do not hold

- No SOC 2. It has not been started.
- No independent external validation of the accuracy figures. Every fixture is one we built.
- No production customer holdout. The evidence is internal.

A table cannot weigh those rows against your file, and neither can a fixture of ours — your own records are the only ones that settle it. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1)

## Built for, and wrong for

Neither of these depends on which alternative you are weighing. They are the two answers that decide whether the comparison above is worth your time at all.

### Built for

Teams with a company master they have to defend — an MDM or stewardship queue, a CRM after a migration or a merger, a supplier file before a payment run, or counterparty onboarding that has to survive an audit.

### Wrong for

Buying breadth as the product: we hold a fraction of an incumbent’s records and are not building a global company graph. Entity Bind resolves companies and organisations only. It does not resolve people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions exposure, emissions or geolocation, and its results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy.

## Where the figures on this page come from

Only the numbers that are not ours are listed here. Each one is the vendor’s own published claim. We have not audited anybody’s coverage figure, and as far as we know neither has anybody outside the company that published it.

- [Third-party enrichment accuracy benchmarks](https://entitybind.com/accuracy): Published benchmarks of company-enrichment field accuracy exist and are widely quoted. We have not audited any of them and do not present them as evidence about any named vendor; our own figures and their denominators are on the accuracy page.

## The method behind our half of this comparison

2 articles that set out how the decision is made and measured, rather than how it compares.

- [What is entity resolution?](https://entitybind.com/guides/what-is-entity-resolution) (Guide): Entity resolution decides which records refer to the same real-world thing. What it is, why company identity is hard, deterministic versus probabilistic matching, and why fuzzy matching is not entity resolution.
- [How to deduplicate a CRM](https://entitybind.com/guides/how-to-deduplicate-a-crm) (Guide): Export, preview, tier the file, run it, review the abstentions, merge with receipts, measure. The full sequence for deduplicating a CRM account object without making a wrong merge you cannot undo.

## The other options you are weighing

The other 11 comparisons, on the shelves the hub uses. Four are not vendor contests: two are the options that beat most vendors most of the time — the fuzzy match you already run, and building it yourself — and two are categories we refuse rather than compete in.

### Data providers and registers

- [Entity Bind vs OpenCorporates](https://entitybind.com/compare/opencorporates) (2/9 rows to them): An excellent register mirror. A register mirror is not a decision.
- [Entity Bind vs Companies House](https://entitybind.com/compare/companies-house-api) (3/12 rows to them): Free, authoritative, and the right answer for a lot of UK teams. It is one of our sources too.
- [Entity Bind vs PermID](https://entitybind.com/compare/lseg-permid) (4/11 rows to them): Free permanent identifiers, and largely unrivalled in capital markets. We do not issue them.

### Resolution engines and platforms

- [Entity Bind vs Senzing](https://entitybind.com/compare/senzing) (5/12 rows to them): A mature engine you run yourself, at no cost per decision. It resolves what you give it.
- [Entity Bind vs Splink](https://entitybind.com/compare/splink) (5/12 rows to them): Free, open source, and it weighs the evidence properly: Fellegi–Sunter, done right. Our scoring stage is the same family.
- [Entity Bind vs AWS Entity Resolution](https://entitybind.com/compare/aws-entity-resolution) (5/12 rows to them): Cheap, inside your own account, and it needs no new vendor. It also matches only what you loaded.
- [Entity Bind vs Tamr](https://entitybind.com/compare/tamr) (5/12 rows to them): Machine-learning mastering at enterprise scale. It learns your labels — including the wrong ones.
- [Entity Bind vs MDM platforms](https://entitybind.com/compare/informatica-and-reltio) (5/12 rows to them): They are the system of record. We are a decision layer beside one, and we write nothing.

### What you would otherwise do

- [Entity Bind vs Fuzzy matching](https://entitybind.com/compare/fuzzy-matching) (3/10 rows to them): Free, already there, and perfectly good until a wrong merge costs money.
- [Entity Bind vs Build it yourself](https://entitybind.com/compare/building-it-yourself) (3/11 rows to them): The right answer if entity resolution is your product. Several teams have done it well.

### Not what we are

- [Entity Bind vs Screening tools](https://entitybind.com/compare/sanctions-screening-tools) (7/12 rows to them): We are not a screening tool and must not be used as one. This page is scope, not competition.

## Questions about Entity Bind and Enrichment vendors

### Do you provide contact data?

No, and this is one of the few absolutes on the site rather than a roadmap gap. Entity Bind resolves companies and organisations only. It does not resolve people, and its results may not be used to identify, profile, locate or screen an individual, to build or enrich a contact database, or to make an eligibility decision about anyone — including employment, credit, insurance and tenancy. Where a register volunteers personal fields, they are discarded at the ingestion boundary and a named offline test pins that behaviour.

### Can we use you to check the enrichment we already buy?

That is the most common reason people arrive here from this comparison. Send your records together with the company the enrichment vendor attached, and each one comes back accepted, withheld or contradicted, with the register page behind the verdict. The output is a per-provider, per-jurisdiction breakdown rather than a single agreement rate, because those numbers move a long way by jurisdiction and a blended figure hides where the problem actually is.

### Clearbit's standalone API is inside HubSpot now. Are you the replacement?

Not in the sense people usually mean. What that shift removed from the market was a developer-first firmographic enrichment API, and this is not one: there are no employee counts, no revenue estimates, no technographics and no contacts here. What we return is identity — which registered company this row is, with citations, a confidence and a refusal where the evidence will not carry a match. If you need firmographics, you need an enrichment vendor, and you may well need both.

### Is your company data better than theirs?

Narrower, and better on exactly one axis. On a company's legal name, number, status, registered office, previous names and identifiers, a register of incorporation is authoritative and a compiled profile is a copy of a copy — and our answer carries the register's own URL so you can check it in about thirty seconds. On breadth, revenue estimates, employee counts, technology signals and anything person-shaped, they win outright and we are not in the contest.

## Settle it against Enrichment vendors on your own rows.

Create your workspace, verify your email and run your first company file. The Free plan needs no card. Create API keys in your workspace when you need an integration.

[Start free](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) · [Plans and prices](https://entitybind.com/pricing)

300 credits. No card.

For a guided review of your file, explore [the Merge Safety Sprint](https://entitybind.com/audit-pack).

---

The 0.90 confidence floor. It is an acceptance contract, not calibration evidence: it says what we refuse to return, not how often an accepted match is right. Read it with the coverage it costs.

Historical results on an internal UK fixture with a preloaded catalogue. The September 5 replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot establish current calibration. No independent customer holdout or global coverage claim.

Internal fixtures only. The historical 2026-08-29 per-tier recording covers 317 GB companies with identifier-rich arrivals seeding the catalogue first; the context tier includes country and registered-town prose. Its legacy replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot certify current calibration. The September 5 CI reports cover 1,176 labelled pairs and 705 records over 250 companies using offline stubs. These are not independent customer holdouts or live production validation; the 99% minimum-input product target remains unmet. Scope is company and organisation identity only — not people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions or emissions. Results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy.

This is the Markdown copy of https://entitybind.com/compare/zoominfo-and-clearbit, assembled from the same data the page renders and carrying every sentence, table row, figure and question the page's main content carries. The HTML page is canonical; it adds the layout, the navigation and the interactive parts (the ask panel, the forms), which a copy can name but not run. Every page on the site, with a line on each: https://entitybind.com/llms.txt.