Every GTM team knows the failure mode: you enrich a company domain, get a clean-looking record, and then discover a 30-person startup tagged as a 5,000-person enterprise. Until recently there was no way to tell which vendor got this right, because vendors mostly graded themselves. In 2026 that changed — two public benchmarks ran company enrichment providers on the same inputs against reviewed answer keys.
What the two scorecards actually measured
The Firecrawl benchmark ran six providers on 200 US companies (150 public, 50 private), scoring seven fields against SEC filings, federal labor and pension records, and company websites. The answer key was frozen before any provider was called, and a missing answer counted as wrong — so the score reflects coverage as much as accuracy.
The independent Openbenchmarks board took a harder cohort: 282 companies including subsidiaries and recent rebrands. It reports two metrics side by side without crowning a single winner — enrichment success rate (correct fields over all verified fields) and field accuracy (how often a returned value is actually right).
Who came out on top
Apollo.io led both boards. On Firecrawl’s four common fields it scored 89.3%, 8.7 points clear of the next provider, and posted the highest field accuracy on Openbenchmarks at 92.6%. Its biggest edge is employee count — the field that drives routing and scoring — where it hit 77.2%, 20.7 points ahead of second place.
People Data Labs ranked second overall but had the highest enrichment success rate (89.0%) on the Openbenchmarks board. Below the top two, the ordering depends on which fields you care about: Ocean.io scored 78.7% on Firecrawl’s common fields, while Explorium and PredictLeads only appear on the Openbenchmarks side. Notably, employee count was the hardest field everywhere, averaging 57% across providers — and when providers guessed wrong, they mostly guessed low.
The integration problem the scores don’t solve
Knowing Apollo is the best is only half the problem. The messier half is wiring each provider into every place your team runs agents — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, plus whatever internal tool RevOps built — each with its own key and schema. That wiring cost, not accuracy, is what often decides which providers a team actually uses.
This is where Firecrawl Alexandria fits. It puts Apollo, People Data Labs, FullEnrich, and Data Legion behind the same API your agents already use for scraping and search — a pattern we looked at in One Key, Three People Data Providers for the contact-data side. Per Firecrawl’s write-up, on six of seven benchmark fields the best provider inside Alexandria scored higher than the best provider outside it.
The practical pattern: run Apollo as your default, fall back to People Data Labs when Apollo misses, and test a third provider on 50 accounts — without building a new integration each time. Company calls are billed in Firecrawl credits (Apollo enrichment was 30 credits per call as of October 9, 2026), and discovery of which provider fits your need is free.
What this means for your next build decision
If you’re picking a single vendor today, the benchmark evidence points to Apollo — with a free tier that includes API access, it’s cheap to verify on your own accounts. If your accuracy requirements are field-specific, read both boards rather than one headline number: Apollo ranked last of six on industry classification, and revenue accuracy from other providers was essentially unusable for public companies.
One honest caveat: Alexandria doesn’t hold its own firmographic database, so the accuracy you get is exactly the accuracy of the provider you call. The benchmark is what makes that visible — and switching providers to fix a weak field is the part Alexandria actually speeds up.