Article
Waterfall Enrichment: What It Is, How It Works, and When It's Worth It
hunter.io
Quoted on this wiki
Every place a page here uses this source, in the order the words come in it.
That’s a natural outcome when you combine different GTM data providers. “For example, some providers have strengths in publicly sourced, verified data across companies, contacts, and technologies.” Others give fantastic coverage of European data, while others succeed with North America.
Every provider has its own statuses and its own logic behind them. Accept-all domains are the classic case. “Their mail servers accept messages to any address, real or not, so no verifier can fully confirm the mailbox exists.” One provider can name these addresses as "risky". Another will call them "valid" with a footnote. A third can fail to make a comment on the status. It's the same email address, but quickly the efficacy of the email address is forgotten.
You already have the contact, an email address or a company domain, and you want the data around it: name, role, location, company size, and industry. “This is the job of enrichment APIs, including Hunter's. Give them an email address or a domain, and they return the person or company profile behind it.” Different providers use different attributes for the same record, so profiles with gaps can cascade through several enrichers the same way emails cascade through finders.
Decide your accept-all policy once. Whether you send to accept-all addresses is your call to make upfront, not something to inherit from whichever provider happened to label the row. “Record the source of every address if possible. It's how you evaluate providers, and it's your answer when someone asks where their data came from.” Cap the chain at 2-3 providers. Many tools license data from the same upstream sources, so the fourth provider in your queue often searches a near-copy of a database you've already tried. Each addition finds less and costs the same to maintain.
Every provider has its own statuses and its own logic behind them. Accept-all domains are the classic case. “Their mail servers accept messages to any address, real or not, so no verifier can fully confirm the mailbox exists.” One provider can name these addresses as "risky". Another will call them "valid" with a footnote. A third can fail to make a comment on the status. It's the same email address, but quickly the efficacy of the email address is forgotten.
Hunter sits inside many of those waterfalls. Clay and other platforms query our data as one of their steps, so we watch this technique work from the inside. In fact, Hunter proudly sits at the helm of Clay's waterfalls, and we've received honors as a top provider for accept-all verification and work email finding. “Waterfall does meet its goal: stacking providers will fill more rows than any single one of them. But coverage is the only thing a waterfall guarantees.” The trade-offs (accuracy, consistency, and price) only become apparent once you've used one for a while.
Waterfall does meet its goal: stacking providers will fill more rows than any single one of them. But coverage is the only thing a waterfall guarantees. “The trade-offs (accuracy, consistency, and price) only become apparent once you've used one for a while.” If you're wondering whether you should even care about this topic, here's a TL;DR: