Buying and engagement, answered in full.
Written for the person who has to defend a company master to people who did not build it. Quote any of it.
- questions on this subject, each answered in full
- 11
- pages these answers are worked out on, all linked below
- 3
- questions across the whole FAQ
- 74
Each answer is the same text the index carries, and every link to one opens the full set at that answer.
Elsewhere in the FAQ
Everything we are asked about buying, evaluating and starting an engagement
Open the ones you need. Each answer is written to be read on its own, so a figure arrives with the population behind it — the fixture it was measured on and the rows it covers — and still holds when you paste it into an email.
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.
When the answer depends on what your own rows look like, it has to be measured on your file.
Start freeThe pages behind these answers
Each answer above is the short version. These pages carry the working: the tables, the payloads, the coverage rows and the caveats an answer can only point at.
- The audit packTwelve files, a receipt per decision, and a report that opens offline.
- PricingWhat a sprint and a standing integration each cost.
- ContactFour routes in, each with the address that answers it.
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.
Built for one job. Wrong for several others.
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.
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.
74 questions, in 8 groups
Every question this site answers sits in one of these groups. If you are not sure which one covers yours, the index carries all 74 in a single page you can search in the browser.
- Entity resolution basics9
- Accuracy and evidence12
- The API11
- The MCP server5
- Pricing and credits8
- Coverage and sources9
- Security and data protection9
All 74 questions in one page →
If none of these groups covers your question, send the file it is about — or write to hello@entitybind.com and we will answer it here.
Talk to usStart with your own company records.
Every answer above is the general case. Create your Free workspace and inspect your own company CSV to see which rows match and which need review. Contact us for an assisted audit of existing matches. We write nothing to your systems.
300 credits. No card.
For a guided review of your file, explore the Merge Safety Sprint →