Leadfeeder vs Lead Forensics: Pricing, Trial, Proof

Leadfeeder vs Lead Forensics: which should you choose?

Both tools identify the companies behind anonymous B2B website visits from the visitor's IP address, and both sell contact data for people at those companies (Leadfeeder from its Activate plan; Lead Forensics lists it on both of its plans). The practical differences are in how you buy them. Leadfeeder publishes its prices, sets your tier by how many companies it identifies each month, and keeps a free Lite plan after the trial. Lead Forensics publishes no price: it quotes one from your website traffic after a demo and a one-week trial, with unlimited users on every plan. So if you want to test on your own before you talk to sales, start with Leadfeeder. If you want a guided trial and a quote for the whole team, Lead Forensics is built for that path. Neither vendor's pages show which one matches more of your traffic. Only a trial on your own site can show that.

The table below comes from each vendor's own pages, read on 2026-09-26. The grid after it turns each difference into a question to put to the vendor before you sign.

How do Leadfeeder and Lead Forensics differ on price, trial and data?

Question	Leadfeeder (its own pages, 2026-09-26)	Lead Forensics (its own pages, 2026-09-26)	What it means for you
How does it identify visitors?	Matches visitor IP addresses to companies from an IP database that it says is updated from several sources, which it says also helps with remote workers.	Its pricing FAQ says a small piece of code tracks the IP addresses of businesses that visit your site.	Both are company-level by default. A company name is not proof that a named person visited.
Is the price published?	Yes. Discover from €79, Activate from €369, Scale from €599 per month, billed annually.	No. The price depends on your website traffic and the leads it uncovers, and you get it after a demo and a trial.	You can model Leadfeeder's cost before a call. For Lead Forensics, you need the trial count before you can budget.
What sets the price?	Unique companies identified per month. Repeat visits by one company count once, and ISPs and low-quality traffic are filtered out.	Website traffic and leads uncovered.	Both prices rise with your traffic. Ask each vendor for the tier that matches the count from your trial, not the starting price.
Free plan	Lite: after a 14-day full trial you keep 7 days of visitor history and up to 100 identified companies a month, with no end date.	None listed.	A low-traffic site can run Leadfeeder Lite in parallel with another tool at no cost.
Trial	14 days, full access, no card.	One week, set up after a form or call, with a rep reviewing your traffic at the end.	A one-week trial is too short to show a weekly pattern. Leave out holiday weeks and campaign spikes.
Users	Unlimited users, including on Lite.	Unlimited users on every plan.	Seat count is not a cost driver for either.
Contact data	Verified emails and phones from the Activate plan.	Decision-maker contact data is listed in its plan features.	This is where the person-level duties start. Your privacy owner should review it before any contact data reaches sales.
CRM integrations named	Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Microsoft Dynamics, Zoho, plus Slack and Zapier.	Salesforce, HubSpot, Microsoft Dynamics, Pipedrive, Zoho.	Both name the same main CRMs. The differences are in field mapping, dedupe and plan level, so ask for these. Leadfeeder's Help Centre says each company synced to a CRM uses 1 credit and lists 50 credits a month on Discover, so check that your plan's credits cover your CRM pushes.

Older comparisons that say "Dealfront" describe the same product: Dealfront became Leadfeeder on March 24, 2026, per Leadfeeder's rebrand FAQ.

A hypothetical check before the trial ends. Say a Leadfeeder trial identifies 180 companies in 14 days. That is about 386 a month (180 ÷ 14 × 30), which is over Lite's 100-a-month limit, so the paid tier for that count is the number to compare. On Leadfeeder's published Discover list (read 2026-09-27) that is the 201-400 tier: €179 a month billed annually, or €256 billed monthly. Only 14 more companies fit before the 401-500 tier at €249, and Leadfeeder counts a company once per office location, so price the next tier too. The visitor identification pricing calculator does this lookup for Leadfeeder and the other vendors that publish every tier. For Lead Forensics, ask the rep to put the traffic and lead counts from your trial week in writing, next to the quote. Then compare cost per identified company that fits your ICP, not the list price.

The Leadfeeder vs Lead Forensics comparison grid

Decision point	Leadfeeder: what to verify	Lead Forensics: what to verify	Safer buyer question	Stop rule
Core job	Current Leadfeeder pages position the product around web visitor identification, company data, intent, and action across marketing and sales. Verify the exact visitor, company, contact, and CRM fields available in your plan.	Current Lead Forensics source material positions the product around B2B website visitor identification and integrations. Verify the exact evidence returned, identity depth, and workflow behavior for your plan.	What evidence will the tool return for our actual site traffic, and how is confidence labeled?	Stop if either vendor answer turns anonymous activity into named-person certainty without documented proof.
Identity depth	Ask whether output is company-level, account-level, contact-level, known-contact, or a mix. Do not infer person-level identification from general visitor-identification copy.	Ask the same identity-depth question and require examples from the current product, not a sales summary.	Which fields are observed, inferred, enriched, or submitted by a person?	Stop if sales cannot tell what is known versus inferred.
CRM handoff	Leadfeeder public copy references CRM and sales/marketing action, and the help center includes Web Visitors and CRM action areas. Ask for current CRM field mapping, ownership, dedupe, and audit behavior.	Lead Forensics integration material can support cautious integration-category framing. Ask for the current integration list, field mapping, ownership, dedupe, and sync behavior.	What object changes in HubSpot, Salesforce, or another CRM, and who owns that record after sync?	Stop if the tool creates leads, tasks, or alerts before evidence labels and owners are defined.
Platform documentation	Use HubSpot tracking, properties, and workflows docs only to plan tracking, fields, and workflow boundaries.	Use Salesforce Web-to-Lead docs to keep explicit form-created leads separate from anonymous account signals.	Which part is vendor capability, and which part is just CRM configuration we own?	Stop if platform docs are used as proof that either vendor identifies people.
Alerting and collaboration	If alerts are part of the workflow, ask what the vendor supports and what message content is configurable.	If alerts are part of the workflow, ask the same question and verify current integration documentation.	Can every alert say what is known, what is inferred, and what the recipient should do next?	Stop if alert copy encourages creepy outreach such as “I saw you on our site.”
Implementation path	Ask whether tags are installed directly, through Google Tag Manager, or through another tag/collection path; then document owner and QA steps.	Ask the same implementation-path question and require a test plan.	Who owns tag scope, duplicate firing, consent-review evidence, and rollback?	Stop if no one can run a controlled test and verify downstream records.
Reporting and ROI	Treat vendor dashboards as product-specific reporting, not as proof of universal conversion lift.	Treat any revenue or pipeline story as a prompt for proof, not a benchmark.	Which outcomes can we measure with our own CRM and analytics data after launch?	Stop if the business case depends on borrowed vendor metrics.
Contract and data review	Use the vendor due-diligence checklist before production access.	Use the same checklist; do not let a two-vendor comparison skip data review.	What data enters the system, where is it stored, who can see it, and how do we remove it?	Stop if privacy, security, or data-processing review is not complete.

What the current sources can safely support

Leadfeeder's homepage and pricing page, read on 2026-09-26, support the statements in the table above: IP-based company identification, published plan prices, the free Lite plan, and the CRMs it names. That does not mean every integration, field, match behavior, plan limit, contact claim, or performance number is available to every buyer. Treat those details as proof requests.

The Leadfeeder Help Centre can support the existence of help material around Web Visitors and CRM-oriented actions. Unless you verify a specific help article, do not turn a help-center category into a detailed feature claim.

Lead Forensics' own homepage and pricing page, read directly on 2026-09-26, support the statements in the table above: company-level identification from visitor IP addresses, real-time alerts and routing, the CRMs it names, a price set from your traffic, a one-week trial, unlimited users, and decision-maker contact data on its plans. They do not publish a price, a match rate you can check, or the source of the contact data. Put those on your list of proof requests.

HubSpot, Salesforce, Google Tag Manager, Google data-layer, and Slack docs are useful boundary sources. They can support general statements about tracking code, properties, workflows, Web-to-Lead, tag deployment, structured context handoff, and incoming webhook messages. They do not prove that Leadfeeder or Lead Forensics performs a specific identity match, creates a specific CRM object, or makes outreach compliant.

How to evaluate CRM and alert fit

Start with the destination object. If your sales process runs in HubSpot, ask whether the visitor-identification signal becomes a company property, contact property, activity, list membership, workflow enrollment, task, or note. If your team runs in Salesforce, ask whether the signal touches leads, accounts, contacts, campaigns, tasks, or custom fields. Keep explicit Web-to-Lead form submissions separate from anonymous visitor/account inference.

Then define the evidence fields before the integration goes live:

Field	Why it matters	Example safe value
Signal source	Shows whether the record came from a vendor match, form, analytics event, or manual review.	visitor_identification_vendor or explicit_form_submission
Identity depth	Prevents company-level data from being treated like a named-person visit.	company_level, known_contact, or vendor_claimed_contact
Confidence or review status	Shows whether a person checked the signal before sales acts.	needs_review, reviewed_account_signal, or do_not_route
Safe next action	Keeps alerts operational instead of creepy.	research account, check open opportunity, send to nurture, or hold
Stop reason	Explains why automation should not continue.	bad fit, customer traffic, ambiguous match, or unsupported person claim

If a vendor cannot help you preserve these labels, your workflow may still be possible, but the burden moves to your CRM owner and RevOps team. That is a build-vs-buy decision, not a reason to relax the evidence standard.

Proof requests before choosing either vendor

Ask both vendors the same questions so the comparison is fair.

1. What exact evidence does the tool return for an anonymous website visit?
2. Which outputs are company-level, account-level, contact-level, or known-contact outputs?
3. Which fields are observed directly, inferred, enriched, manually reviewed, or submitted through a first-party form?
4. Which CRM objects and fields can be created or updated today?
5. What dedupe rules prevent duplicate leads, accounts, or tasks?
6. Can alerts be configured to show evidence and stop rules, not just a company name?
7. How is tag firing tested, and who owns Google Tag Manager or direct-code deployment?
8. How does the vendor handle employee, customer, partner, competitor, agency, and low-fit traffic?
9. What proof supports any integration claim for HubSpot, Salesforce, Slack, or another system?
10. What data-processing, retention, access, and deletion controls are documented for your use case?
11. What claims in the sales deck are current public documentation versus customer-specific examples?
12. Which claims should be removed from your internal business case because they rely on generalized vendor metrics?

When Leadfeeder may fit better

Evaluate Leadfeeder first when you want to see real results before a sales call: the 14-day trial needs no card, the prices are published, and the free Lite plan lets a low-traffic site keep a baseline running. It also fits when you want to budget from a count you can see, because the tier follows the number of companies identified each month.

That is not a recommendation to choose it. It is a reason to ask Leadfeeder for exact proof: output examples, field mappings, implementation steps, alert behavior, and data-review answers for your stack.

When Lead Forensics may fit better

Evaluate Lead Forensics first when you want a guided trial with a rep who reviews your traffic with you, and when many people across the business need access, because every plan has unlimited users. Plan for the one-week trial window, and ask for the quote in writing against the counts from that week. You still need current proof for your CRM field mapping, alert behavior, implementation path and data controls.

That is not a recommendation to choose it. It is a reason to ask Lead Forensics the same proof questions and compare the answers against your workflow, not against a generic ranking page.

When not to choose either yet

Pause the purchase if the next action requires more certainty than either vendor can document. Common stop conditions include:

• Sales wants to message named people based only on anonymous account activity.
• No one owns CRM field mapping, dedupe, and rollback.
• Alerts cannot show what is known, inferred, and unsafe to assume.
• The team has not separated explicit form submissions from inferred visitor/account signals.
• The business case depends on vendor headline metrics instead of your own measurement plan.
• Privacy, security, legal, or data-processing review is incomplete.
• Google Tag Manager or direct-code deployment has no QA owner.

If any of those are true, use the vendor due-diligence checklist before buying. If the deeper question is whether to buy at all, use the build-vs-buy worksheet first.

A simple evaluation sequence

1. Write the job: “We need to identify account-level website signals for internal review,” or a more specific version.
2. Mark the identity depth required: company, account, known contact, or vendor-claimed contact.
3. Choose the destination: HubSpot company, Salesforce account, CRM task, Slack alert, report, or hold queue.
4. Ask both vendors for the exact same evidence sample and field map.
5. Run a tag and CRM QA test before production routing.
6. Approve only safe alert wording.
7. Measure your own post-launch outcomes instead of copying vendor metrics.

Claim ledger

Claim used in this guide	Source boundary	Review rule
Leadfeeder is positioned around web visitor identification, company data, intent, and sales or marketing action.	The current Leadfeeder homepage and Help Centre, observed 2026-09-02; homepage FAQ re-read 2026-09-26.	Review before changing feature, integration, pricing, or performance language.
Lead Forensics identifies companies from visitor IP addresses, prices from your traffic after a demo and a one-week trial, allows unlimited users, and lists decision-maker contact data.	Lead Forensics homepage and pricing page, read 2026-09-26.	Re-read the pricing page before you quote the trial length or plan names.
Leadfeeder publishes Discover (€79), Activate (€369) and Scale (€599) starting prices per month billed annually, a free Lite plan (7 days of history, up to 100 companies a month), and a 14-day trial. Dealfront became Leadfeeder on 2026-03-24.	Leadfeeder pricing page and rebrand FAQ, read 2026-09-26.	Prices change. Re-read before you quote them.
HubSpot, Salesforce, Google Tag Manager, Google data-layer, and Slack docs support workflow boundaries.	Official platform docs observed 2026-09-02.	Do not use platform docs as proof that either vendor identifies people or creates a specific CRM object.
Vendor headline metrics, rankings, match rates, legal outcomes, and revenue lift are not claimed here. Prices are the vendors' published starting prices only.	Not used.	Add only after current primary-source proof supports the exact claim.

FAQ

Is Leadfeeder better than Lead Forensics?

Not from public sources alone. Public pages can support cautious category positioning, but they do not prove which tool is better for your stack, traffic, CRM model, data-review requirements, or sales rules. Compare the proof each vendor gives for your workflow.

Can either tool identify every anonymous visitor?

Do not assume that. Treat visitor-identification claims as evidence that needs identity-depth labels. A company-level or account-level signal is not the same as proof that a named person visited.

How much do Leadfeeder and Lead Forensics cost?

Leadfeeder's pricing page (read 2026-09-26) lists Discover from €79, Activate from €369 and Scale from €599 per month, billed annually, plus a free Lite plan. The tier depends on how many companies it identifies each month. Lead Forensics does not publish a price. Its pricing page says the cost depends on your website traffic and is set after a demo and a one-week trial.

Does Lead Forensics have a free trial?

Yes. Its pricing page says the trial is free, has no obligation and lasts one week. You request it through a form or a call, and a rep takes you through your traffic at the end. Leadfeeder's trial is 14 days and needs no card.

What is the safest CRM handoff?

The safest handoff is a reviewed account signal with source, identity depth, confidence, owner, safe next action, and stop rule fields. Avoid automatic sales outreach from weak anonymous matches.

What should we do after this comparison?

Use this grid to shortlist proof requests. Then run the vendor due-diligence checklist before giving either tool production access. If the decision is really whether to buy or build, use Build vs Buy Visitor Identification: The Worksheet for B2B Teams first.