Tomba.io vs Prospeo

Feature tables only take you so far. A Tomba.io vs Prospeo decision comes down to one question: which tool returns more valid emails from the same list?

So we published the test instead of describing it. We ran the same 5,000-lead file through every major provider. Nobody cleaned the input first. Nobody retried a failed row. Then we exported the raw sheets.

Tomba returned 4,015 valid emails. Anymailfinder returned 3,875, and Findymail returned 3,757. Because the file was identical for each tool, the gap reflects coverage rather than luck. You can open the full result sheet and check any row yourself.

Coverage is only half the cost though. Most tools bill a credit whether the address works or not. As a result, your real price per usable contact climbs well above the sticker price.

Tomba bills only for valid results. If a search returns nothing, it costs nothing. Verification is included as well, so you are not paying a second vendor to clean the same list.

Credits also last 12 months here. Elsewhere they usually reset monthly. For a team with an uneven pipeline, that difference matters more than the headline rate.

First, export your existing contact list. Next, run it through the verifier to see how much of it still delivers. Most teams are surprised here.

Then rebuild the gaps with Domain Search or Bulk Tasks if you work at volume. Finally, point your integration at the API and keep the rest of your stack as it is.

The free tier covers 25 searches a month. So you can test the claim on your own data before you move anything.

Set-up takes minutes. You sign up. You pick a plan. Then you search. No sales call. No demo to sit through. No contract to sign first.

Most teams start small. They pick 50 domains they know well. Then they run the same list here and there. The gap shows up fast.

Try that test yourself. It costs nothing. And it beats any claim on a landing page, ours included.

Sales teams switch to build lists that bounce less. Recruiters switch to reach people who moved jobs. Founders switch to find partners fast.

Agencies care most about bulk work. They upload a file and walk away. Developers care most about the API. They wire it in once and forget it.

Small teams tend to care about waste. Every credit spent on a dead address is money gone. So valid-only billing adds up over a year.

You want emails that work. Paying for the rest makes no sense. That is the whole idea here. You search, we check, and only hits cost a credit.

A dead address costs you nothing. A good one costs one credit. So your list stays clean and your spend stays low.

That last part matters most. A high bounce rate can hurt your sender score. Once that score drops, even good mail lands in spam. And once you are in spam, the next send is worse.

So we check each address first. Then we hand it over. You send with far less risk, and your domain stays safe.

Is there a free plan? Yes. It gives you 25 searches each month. No card is needed to start.

Do credits expire? They last a full year. Most tools reset them each month, so a slow month wipes them out.

Do I pay for a bad address? No. If the search finds nothing, it costs nothing.

Is verification extra? It is built in. You do not need to buy a second tool to clean the same list.

Can I move my old data? Yes. Upload a file and it runs through in one go. Nothing is locked in.

Is there an API? Yes, with SDKs for most stacks. Teams wire it in once and leave it alone.

What about phone numbers? They come with the same search. You do not pay a third vendor for them.

How fresh is the data? Crawls run all month. Old records drop out once the source goes away.

No tool finds every address. Ours found 4,015 out of 5,000. That leaves roughly a fifth of the file empty. Any vendor claiming more should show you a sheet.

Coverage also varies by region and company size. Large firms are easy. Tiny firms with no web presence are hard. That is true here and true everywhere else.

So test on your own market. Run your real list, not a demo list. Then pick the tool that wins on your data.