what to send, and what comes back

Send us a file.
Or the messy version of the question.

You own a company master you have to defend: a stewardship queue, a CRM after a migration or a merger, a supplier file before a payment run. Send us the export. We will tell you which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches we would not have made, and which ones we will not call — each with the column that would have settled it.

Nothing needs tidying first, and a half-formed question is a fine place to start. We write nothing to your systems.

Talk to us →

It lands at hello@entitybind.com and reaches James Rooney, who wrote the cascade, the calibration and this site. No switchboard and no handover to an account team. Three other addresses are below.

Testing the API instead? Request free evaluation →

The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation.

Self-serviceCreate 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
after you send it

Three steps, and you can stop after the first

We run the preview on your file; it calls nothing and costs nothing.

  1. 01

    A preview run over your file

    We run it on the file you send, before you need a workspace or a key: no model calls, no spend, and nothing leaves your side that you did not attach. It sorts every row by the strongest signal that survives normalisation, names the populated columns that are unusable and why, and prices a ceiling. If your file already carries clean identifiers, it says so.
  2. 02

    A sample run, usually a few thousand rows

    The full cascade over a slice you choose, producing the audit pack and decisions you can check by hand against the register pages we cite.
  3. 03

    A decision, in either direction

    A scope and a fixed price for the sprint, a standing integration against the API and the MCP server, or a straight no.
what it got wrong
0
wrong merges, across every shape of file we tested

On 317 live GB companies recorded 2026-08-29, across seven different shapes of input from a company number down to a name cut off by a field limit. Where the evidence would not carry a match, the row came back unresolved.

Zero wrong bindings were observed across the historical six-shape recording and the separate domain fixture. Observed correctness was 1.0000 on accepted outcomes; this does not guarantee an error-free new workload. 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.

Every figure, its population and what it does not show →

what we will not promise

A count of dangerous merges prevented

We do not promise a count of dangerous merges prevented, and you should distrust anyone who does before they have seen your file. Zero is a normal, honest result: two rows carrying contradicting company numbers are refused outright and never reach the guard that would have counted them.

The audit pack: twelve files, a receipt per decision, and a report that opens offline.

what a useful file looks like

Send the columns you have, including the awkward ones

An export is fine. A tidied export is not better, and a sample beats a conversation about the schema.

In your fileWhat it decides
A company number or an LEIDecides on its own. No model call, no egress, one credit.
A name plus a domain, postcode, town or countryResolves at the rate published for that shape on the accuracy page.
A name cut off by a field-length limitThe weakest shape we measure. Its rate is published beside the rest.
The column you assume is uselessOften the one that separates two same-named companies.

Coverage is regional, so it is worth a look before you pick the sample. If your file is not United Kingdom, United States or European, the register table is the first thing to check.

Your file is resolved in a tenant of its own, and every decision carries a receipt that reopens at a URL. What we send back is files keyed on your own record ids: we write nothing to your systems, there is no writeback connector to switch on later, and a file sent for a sprint is not training data. Retention, sub-processors, erasure and the parts of the audit trail erasure does not reach are in the privacy notice and on the trust page.

Send the columns you have, including the ones you assume are useless. We run the preview on them, and it costs nothing.

Talk to us
is this you

Who this is built for, and who it is wrong for

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.

beside what you run

If you already run a licensed company-data feed or a master data management platform, run Entity Bind alongside it. It is the independent decision and evidence layer: it tests, repairs and governs the matches those systems propose, and it will contradict them with a citation when they are wrong.

What each alternative does better →

It is an early-stage product, sold and priced as one. Global data breadth and independent market validation are not yet at incumbent scale, and the accuracy figures come from internal fixtures rather than an external holdout. Read the trust page →

the planned evaluation

1,000 credits, the full pipeline, no card

Give your agent room to test your companies, inspect the citations and compare the results. Deterministic matching, adjudication and registry research, with the same evidence and confidence rules as the paid product.

What it gives your agent

The full pipeline, with the sources your workload needs confirmed, switched on in your Entity Bind workspace, where you create your own API keys. Resolve over REST or MCP, read the evidence behind a decision, and check the identifiers against answers you can verify yourself.

1,000 one-time credits, valid for 30 days from your first resolution. No card required. Full resolution depth, with configured sources and their existing licence terms.

The credits cover up to 200 deep answers or 1,000 shallow ones, or a mix; abstentions, exact replays and evidence reads cost nothing. An allowance is not a guarantee of a match.

requests open · activation planned

Ask for the evaluation

Tell us the input fields you have and the jurisdictions involved. We confirm availability, the sources your cases need and how activation will work. The 30-day period is planned to begin with your first resolution after activation.

Request free evaluation →

The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation.

who you sign with

The terms name the company you sign with

Entity Bind has no legal personality of its own, so it is not the party you sign with. The company you contract with, and its registration, are named in the terms, and the privacy notice, which covers what you send us, names the same company.

the ask

Send us a file.

A Merge Safety Sprint runs over the public API on a copy of your file and writes nothing to your CRM, ERP, MDM or warehouse.

For a guided review of your file, explore the Merge Safety Sprint →

Before you write

The questions asked before a first conversation, in the same words as the FAQ index.

What is included in the 1,000-credit evaluation?

1,000 free credits. The full resolution pipeline. 1,000 one-time credits, valid for 30 days from your first resolution. No card required. Full resolution depth, with configured sources and their existing licence terms. It uses the same resolution pipeline and evidence rules as paid access. At the current credit prices, that means up to 1,000 shallow decisions or 200 deep decisions; the actual mix depends on your inputs. Abstentions, exact replays and evidence reads cost no credits. The planned allowance includes up to 1,000 deep attempts, including those that abstain. Credits and attempts are separate limits. Provider-spend protection may pause work explicitly; unused credits stay visible and the pipeline is never silently downgraded. The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation.

Can my agent try it without a sales call?

Your agent can read the public REST reference, the MCP setup and /api/quickstart.txt right now. Live calls need a key from your Entity Bind workspace and the base URL that comes with it. Today the workspace opens after email verification; once it is open, you create the key yourself and your agent uses it over the API or MCP. The full-pipeline evaluation is arranged separately and is not activated by signup. Request it for your workspace; we confirm availability, sources and the start date before activation. Signup is self-service. The separate full-pipeline evaluation remains request-only and requires confirmed availability and provider limits before activation.

How do we start?

Create your Free workspace online, verify your email and upload your own company CSV. Free includes 300 credits and shallow matching with no card; create your own API keys for REST and MCP, and choose a paid monthly subscription in Billing when you need greater depth or capacity. For an assisted Merge Safety Sprint, contact us with the file you are defending: a CRM export, a supplier master, a customer-success list or a post-merger overlap, with your own source ids preserved and, if you have them, the entity id, match and confidence your incumbent proposed. A person reads that request, and a short conversation scopes the optional assisted Sprint. What comes back is which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches we would not have made, and which we could not decide — where a further field would settle an unresolved row, it names that field. We write nothing into your systems, and you do not replace your current vendor to run it. The accuracy method is published in full at /accuracy.

What is a Merge Safety Sprint?

Send us a file. We tell you which of your rows are the same company, which of your existing matches are wrong, and what we could not decide — and we write nothing to your systems. The deliverable is the audit pack: twelve files, a receipt per decision, and a report that opens offline. It contains accepted matches, new entities, unresolved rows, withheld pairs, blocked merges, golden records, a reversal map, decision receipts, an attribution notice and a self-contained report that also prints to PDF. Every unresolved row carries a typed cause from a closed vocabulary of eight, and a column of yours to add or repair wherever a column is nameable — which is most rows and not all of them; where nothing we could name would help, the row says so rather than inventing a field. Two of the eight causes are ours rather than yours. The totals reconcile row by row across ten machine-checked identities, and if they do not partition, the run exits non-zero and no pack is delivered. It proposes actions; it never applies them. What it is not is a shadow run: the import behind it created entities in our catalogue, and the no-write property is scoped to your systems.

How many dangerous merges will you find?

We do not promise a count of dangerous merges prevented, and you should distrust anyone who does before they have seen your file. Zero is a normal, honest result: two rows carrying contradicting company numbers are refused outright and never reach the guard that would have counted them. The ledger only fills where the cascade proposed a merge and the guard refused it, so the well-identified files we qualify for are precisely the ones most likely to return nothing. What makes a zero readable is what sits behind it: the pack lists the pairs that were compared and not called, counts the pairs the comparison budget deferred, and states that the list was not truncated. A zero with that behind it is a finding. A zero without it is why we would not ship the file at all — a header-only file reading as "we found no dangerous merges" is the most misleading output this product could emit.

Will you write to our CRM?

No, and there is no writeback connector to switch on later either — automatic CRM or ERP writeback is explicitly not on the roadmap. What comes back is a set of files keyed on your own record ids, so the join happens on your side, under your change control. That is a commercial position as much as a technical one: the moment a supplier writes to your master, an argument about a bad merge becomes an argument about whose fault it is, and the receipt stops being the point. We propose actions and you apply them, or you do not. A report is never the system of record.

Can you prove you are better than the vendor we already pay?

Not in the abstract, and not from a benchmark we ran ourselves. What we can do is adjudicate their proposals on your data: send your record with the match your incumbent proposed, and we accept it, withhold it or contradict it independently, per provider, per jurisdiction and per evidence tier. That produces a number about your file rather than about a fixture, and it is checkable, because every contradiction cites a register page you can open. One thing we do not currently ship is a packaged incumbent-contradiction ledger inside the audit pack — that file is absent by declaration rather than empty — so the comparison is a working session today rather than a download.

Another vendor quotes hundreds of millions of companies and a 96% match rate. How do you compare?

Not on breadth. An incumbent-scale graph is not a battle a new entrant wins, and building a global proprietary company database is explicitly not the plan. Compare the numbers instead, starting with what a match rate has to carry before it means anything: the denominator, the fixture it was measured on, the automation rate beside it, and the shape the records arrived in. Every figure on this site carries all four, including the two that do us no favours. On the live-adjudicated fixture of 317 GB companies recorded 2026-08-29, the truncated-name shape resolves 58.10% (61/105) — our weakest input shape, published at the same weight as our strongest. Separately, on the continuous-integration gold set of 2026-09-05, 357/357 automated merges were clean at 63.10% automation, with a 95% Wilson lower bound of 98.94% — below the 99% anybody would rather quote. Those are two different instruments over two different fixtures, and they are never averaged. A vendor's figures are a vendor's figures, ours included; the way to settle it is to send the same file to both of us.

We already have an MDM platform. Where does this fit?

Beside it, as the layer that decides and evidences rather than the one that stores. A master data platform is very good at governance workflow, stewardship, hierarchy management and pushing a golden record to the systems that consume it, and none of that is on offer here. What it usually does not have is an independent admission policy: the matching rules are yours, tuned by your stewards, and there is nothing outside the platform to contradict them with a citation. Entity Bind is that outside opinion, with a receipt per decision and a floor it will not cross, feeding the stewardship queue rather than replacing it. If your stewards are drowning, the abstentions are the work list.

What does an evaluation actually look like?

Three steps and no obligation. First, we run a free preview over your file, which calls nothing and spends nothing: it tiers every row by the strongest retrieval signal that survives normalisation, tells you which of your populated columns are unusable and why, and prices a ceiling. Second, a sample run — usually a few thousand rows — that produces the audit pack and a set of rows you can check by hand against the register pages we cite. Third, a decision. If the preview shows your file already carries clean identifiers and nothing here would move, that is a valid outcome and the right place to stop.

Who is behind it, and how long has it existed?

Entity Bind is built in London by its founder, James Rooney, and it is early. It is a product name rather than a company: the company you contract with, and its registration, are named in the terms at /terms. The engineering discipline is real and published — the cascade, the calibration, the licence guard at the persistence layer, the receipts, the erasure proofs — and the commercial track record is not: no named production reference, no multi-customer holdout, no independent validation. The internal readiness rubric scores the product 74 out of 100 against its own 95 target, and scores external validation 3 out of 15. If your evaluation requires calling a customer already running this in production inside a regulated firm, we cannot give you one, and that is the first thing to weigh.