Updated in June 2025 – In this comprehensive article, we will analyze in detail the features, advantages, disadvantages, and pricing of Kaspr and Lusha, two reference solutions for B2B prospecting and data enrichment. Our definitive guide will help you choose the tool perfectly adapted to your business needs.
B2B prospecting has radically evolved in recent years. The digital era has transformed traditional sales strategies into data-driven processes, where access to accurate and up-to-date prospect information has become a determining competitive advantage.
In this constantly evolving ecosystem, two solutions stand out particularly: Kaspr and Lusha. These B2B data enrichment and prospecting platforms represent current market standards, but with fundamentally different approaches.
The central question for marketing and sales professionals is now: which solution offers the best efficiency/investment ratio in 2025? What are the determining criteria for making an informed choice between these two digital prospecting giants?
This exhaustive Kaspr vs Lusha comparison answers these questions with analyses based on thorough testing, user feedback, and methodical evaluation of features. You will discover not only the technical characteristics of each platform, but also their practical application in different professional contexts.
Kaspr’s specificity lies in its “LinkedIn-first” approach that prioritizes quality and contextual relevance of data rather than raw contact quantity.
Key Points of Kaspr:
Founded in 2016, Lusha has developed a different approach to B2B prospecting by building its own proprietary database. Based in Israel, the company now claims over 800,000 users worldwide and a database of more than 100 million professional profiles.
Lusha’s philosophy is based on aggregation and systematic verification of data from multiple sources, thus creating a rich and reliable repository, independent of a specific platform.
Lusha distinguishes itself by its ability to provide verified data at scale, regardless of potential limitations of professional social networks.
Key Points of Lusha:
To objectively evaluate these two solutions, we have analyzed their features in depth according to several criteria essential for modern sales teams.
Kaspr’s Chrome extension stands out with:
Strength: The extension integrates organically into the LinkedIn experience, giving the impression of using a native network feature.
Limitation: Only available on Chrome, which can be restrictive for organizations using other browsers.
Lusha’s extension offers:
Strength: Multi-platform versatility allows extracting information beyond LinkedIn.
Limitation: Less fluid integration with LinkedIn may sometimes require more clicks to obtain the same information as with Kaspr.
Data quality is often the determining criterion in choosing a prospecting tool. Our tests revealed significant differences:
Integration with existing ecosystem is crucial for prospecting tool adoption:
Both platforms offer comparable integration capabilities, with a slight edge for Lusha regarding specialized outbound tools (Outreach, SalesLoft) and for Kaspr regarding export flexibility.
User experience directly influences adoption and usage efficiency:
Kaspr offers a more modern and intuitive user experience, particularly appreciated by tech-savvy sales teams. Lusha favors a functional approach centered on operational efficiency, with less attention to aesthetics.
Regulatory compliance has become an essential criterion in choosing prospecting tools:
Lusha stands out with a more formalized compliance approach, with third-party certifications and extensive documentation. Kaspr offers a solution adapted to the European market, with particular emphasis on GDPR.
To objectively evaluate the quality of data provided, we conducted a series of tests on a sample of 500 professional profiles distributed across different geographic zones and activity sectors.
These results confirm slightly superior overall quality for Lusha, particularly for phone numbers, with a certain advantage in North America. Kaspr maintains a slight advantage in Europe.
Speed is a crucial factor for sales teams:
Lusha offers better performance for batch processing, while Kaspr is faster for individual extraction from LinkedIn.
Each solution presents specific constraints:
To maximize return on investment with Kaspr:
To fully exploit Lusha’s capabilities:
Additional Costs:
Additional Costs:
ROI analysis reveals significant differences depending on use cases:
For a team of 5 salespeople with a goal of 500 new qualified contacts per month:
This comparison shows a pricing advantage for Lusha, but must be nuanced by the added value of Kaspr’s automation features, which can justify the price difference according to specific needs.
Marie L., Sales Director, SaaS startup (France) “Kaspr has transformed our prospecting approach. LinkedIn integration is perfect, and data quality in Europe is exceptional. Automated sequences save us precious time. Only downside: the price remains high for a small structure like ours.”
Thomas D., Account Executive, digital agency (Belgium) “After 6 months of daily use, I couldn’t do without Kaspr. The interface is intuitive, data reliable at 90%, and support very responsive. The investment was paid back in less than 2 months with new signed contracts.”
Alexandre M., Business Development Consultant (France) “I’ve tested several solutions and Kaspr remains my reference for LinkedIn prospecting. The contextual richness of data allows much finer personalization of approaches. However, performance is limited outside Europe and LinkedIn.”
Sarah K., VP Sales, software company (United States) “Lusha has become indispensable for our team. Data accuracy, particularly for the American market, is impressive. Salesforce integration works perfectly. The credit system is transparent and predictable.”
John T., Business Developer, financial sector (United Kingdom) “What differentiates Lusha is the reliability of direct phone numbers. Our connection rate has increased by 27% since we’ve been using it. The interface could be more modern, but efficiency takes precedence over aesthetics.”
Camille D., Marketing Manager, scale-up (Canada) “We mainly use Lusha for its database. The ability to quickly identify decision-makers in target companies saves us hours of research. The value for money is excellent, but automation features remain basic.”
Context: Digital transformation consulting firm, 15 employees, based in Paris. Objective: develop clientele in French mid-market segment.
Implementation:
Results after 6 months:
Key Success Factors:
Context: B2B software publisher, 120 employees, headquarters in London and subsidiaries in North America. Objective: penetrate American market with new solution.
Implementation:
Results after 12 months:
Key Success Factors:
While Kaspr and Lusha are essential references, other solutions deserve attention according to your specific needs:
Strengths:
Disadvantages:
Ideal for: Large companies with substantial budgets, US market focus
Strengths:
Disadvantages:
Ideal for: Startups and scale-ups, sales teams beginning in outbound
Strengths:
Disadvantages:
Ideal for: Teams practicing social selling, sectors with strong LinkedIn presence
Strengths:
Disadvantages:
Ideal for: Specific email verification needs, small teams
Strengths:
Disadvantages:
Ideal for: Companies seeking best quality/price balance, data compliance focus
To facilitate your decision, here are our recommendations according to different user profiles:
Kaspr will be particularly suited to:
Lusha will particularly suit:
Some organizations benefit from a combined approach, using:
This approach, while more expensive, offers optimal coverage for teams with diverse needs.
LinkedIn Excellence
Superior Ergonomics
Efficient Automation
Higher Cost
LinkedIn Dependency
Rich Database
Advanced Verification
Extended Integrations
Less Modern Interface
Basic Automation Features
Kaspr excels in LinkedIn data enrichment with a modern interface and advanced automation features, while Lusha stands out with its verified proprietary database, accuracy on the American market, and extensive CRM integrations.
Yes, Kaspr and Lusha respect GDPR requirements. Kaspr, being a French solution, is particularly oriented toward European compliance. Lusha offers GDPR and CCPA compliance, with additional SOC 2 Type II certification.
Absolutely. Some companies combine the strengths of both platforms to maximize their B2B prospecting. Kaspr can be used for LinkedIn enrichment and automation, while Lusha can serve as a complementary source for verification and access to contacts outside LinkedIn.
Lusha displays an overall accuracy rate of 89.2% thanks to its double verification, with particular excellence on the North American market (93.1%). Kaspr maintains an accuracy rate of 87.4%, with superior performance in Europe (91.3%).
Yes, alternatives like Apollo.io (generous freemium offer) or Hunter.io (email specialist) can be considered for more restricted budgets. FullEnrich also represents a competitive alternative combining data quality and accessible pricing.
Kaspr mainly uses the Chrome extension to extract data from visited LinkedIn profiles, complemented by multi-source enrichment. Lusha combines its browser extension with its proprietary database, allowing extraction of information from LinkedIn but also other web sources.
LinkedIn monitors extraction tool usage. However, Kaspr and Lusha respect technical limits imposed by LinkedIn and are designed for reasonable use. Intensive and non-compliant usage can indeed lead to temporary restrictions.
Both platforms offer native integrations with major CRMs (Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, etc.) allowing bidirectional data synchronization. For systems not natively supported, Zapier connectors are available.
Lusha works with a credit system: 1 credit = 1 enriched contact. Credits are renewed monthly according to your plan. Kaspr directly uses the notion of monthly contacts included in the subscription, also renewed each month.
Yes, both platforms allow data export in CSV or Excel format. Kaspr offers more advanced customization options for these exports, while Lusha offers more standardized but efficient exports.
For Kaspr, the average payback period is 2-3 months according to usage intensity. Lusha presents faster ROI, generally between 1-2 months, mainly thanks to its lower cost per contact.
Kaspr offers a startup program providing up to 40% reduction for companies less than 2 years old. Lusha offers special rates for non-profit organizations (25-30% reduction) and academic programs.
Kaspr offers its best rates with annual commitment (25-30% savings vs monthly). Lusha offers more flexibility with monthly options without commitment, but also preferential rates in case of annual commitment (20-25% savings).
Both platforms apply their extraction limits per user and not per account. Thus, a team of 5 people with individual licenses will benefit from 5 times the standard quota.
Kaspr offers a 14-day trial period with access to all features and 50 credits. Lusha offers a 7-day free trial with 10 credits to test the platform. Personalized demonstrations are available on request for both solutions.
After thorough analysis of both platforms, here are our conclusions and recommendations:
The choice between Kaspr and Lusha should be guided by your specific priorities rather than searching for an absolute winner. Both platforms excel in their respective domains and will probably continue to converge in terms of features.
For organizations wanting to explore an alternative offering excellent balance, FullEnrich particularly deserves attention in 2025, combining Lusha’s data accuracy with Kaspr’s user experience, all at competitive pricing.
To guarantee objectivity of this comparison, we followed rigorous methodology:
This methodology allows us to offer a balanced and factual evaluation of both solutions, beyond editor marketing.