How does DataChi compare?
Hit rate, latency and credits per result across the enrichment catalog. DataChi's direct provider routing skips the LLM middleman on the fast path; deep mode adds a multi-provider fan-out and a cross-check judge. Compare on value — hit rate per credit — not absolute price. Note the billing-model gap: some providers meter per success (misses free); DataChi credits bill per entry, so cost per resolved lookup is the honest comparator.
Latency
Median wall-clock. Deep mode is shown as a range because the run fans out to multiple providers and adds a cross-check judge.
Value quadrant
Top-left is best value: high hit rate at low credits. DataChi's position is the differentiator, not its absolute price.
Cost per resolved lookup
Credits ÷ hit rate, per-success prices converted at 1 credit = $0.01 (misses free). A 2.45-credit vendor that hits 25% of the time costs 9.7 credits per resolved lookup — more than a 4-credit vendor that hits 92% (4.3). QuickEnrich and Tomba win this number on absolute price; the value quadrant above is the better buy signal.
Field coverage
Which fields each provider has figures for. Tomba and DataChi cover all three lanes; Hunter and Apollo are email + company; QuickEnrich and Lusha are email + phone; Dropcontact's benchmark is email-only. Cells without a measured figure show an em dash.
Fast mode · what it is
- Single provider call per field. DataChi picks the best provider for the field and returns.
- Sub-second target. No LLM in the request path.
- Returned fields are provider-verified, not cross-checked.
- Best for enrichment on the chat hot path or live lookup forms.
Deep mode · what it is
- Multi-provider fan-out with a cross-check judge on conflicting fields.
- Higher hit rate at the cost of wall-clock. Adds 3–8 seconds.
- AI-extracted fields (role, seniority, intent) layered on top of vendor output.
- Best for one-shot enrichment of a saved lead, post-promote.