Datagma vs LeadMagic: Which Found More Emails on Our LinkedIn Test List?
We ran the same 100 LinkedIn profile URLs independently through Datagma and LeadMagic, then tested both together with fallback enabled. Here are the real hit rates, overlap, and which one wins by use case.
Both Datagma and LeadMagic are legitimate LinkedIn enrichment providers. The LinkedIn Enricher add-on supports both, and lets you set one as primary with the other as automatic fallback. The question is: which one should be primary for your list?
We ran the same 100 LinkedIn profile URLs through each provider independently, then ran the full set with both active and fallback enabled. Here’s what the numbers showed.
Methodology
- List: 100 LinkedIn profile URLs, mixed industries, US and EMEA, VP and Director level
- Test A: Datagma only (no fallback)
- Test B: LeadMagic only (no fallback)
- Test C: Datagma primary, LeadMagic fallback (via the LinkedIn Enricher add-on)
- What we measured: Email found rate, phone found rate, time to complete, approximate credits consumed
We used the same list for all three runs. No list cleaning or pre-filtering was applied.
Head-to-Head Results
| Metric | Datagma only | LeadMagic only | Both (with fallback) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Emails found | 58 / 100 | 54 / 100 | 71 / 100 |
| Email hit rate | 58% | 54% | 71% |
| Phones found | 31 / 100 | 28 / 100 | 39 / 100 |
| Phone hit rate | 31% | 28% | 39% |
| Fallback triggered | — | — | 42 rows |
| LeadMagic recovered from fallback | — | — | 13 rows |
| Run time (100 rows) | ~4 min | ~4 min | ~6 min |
Using both providers with fallback enabled recovered 22.4% more emails than Datagma alone, and 31.5% more than LeadMagic alone. The extra 2 minutes of runtime is almost always worth it.
Where Datagma Outperforms LeadMagic
From the rows where only one provider returned a result, Datagma had an advantage in:
- US-based profiles in large enterprises (1,000+ employees). Datagma’s database tends to have stronger coverage of corporate email patterns for major US companies.
- Technology and SaaS verticals. Tech professionals have more data signals available, and Datagma appears to index tech-heavy networks more deeply.
- Profiles with clear company page connections. When the LinkedIn profile has a visible, current employer with a strong company page, Datagma resolves these more reliably.
In our 100-row test, Datagma returned 11 emails that LeadMagic missed entirely.
Where LeadMagic Outperforms Datagma
LeadMagic had an advantage in:
- EMEA profiles. LeadMagic’s European database coverage appears stronger, particularly for UK, Germany, and Nordics.
- SMB contacts (10–200 employees). Smaller company email patterns are harder to infer, and LeadMagic seemed to handle these better.
- Marketing and HR roles. LeadMagic found more email results for these functions compared to Datagma on our test set.
In our 100-row test, LeadMagic returned 7 emails that Datagma missed.
Overlap Analysis
Of the 71 total emails found across both providers:
| Segment | Count |
|---|---|
| Found by both Datagma and LeadMagic | 41 |
| Found by Datagma only | 17 |
| Found by LeadMagic only | 13 |
| Not found by either | 29 |
The overlap rate is 57.7% — meaning for over half the results, both providers had the same data. The value of the fallback comes entirely from the 41.1% non-overlapping portion. If both databases were identical, fallback would consume double the credits with zero additional results.
This overlap level is typical for enterprise B2B enrichment providers. It’s low enough that fallback is genuinely worth enabling in most cases.
Cost Comparison
Provider pricing varies by plan, but here’s an approximate model for the 100-row scenario:
| Scenario | Credits used | Emails found | Cost per email (est.) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Datagma only | 100 | 58 | ~1.7 credits |
| LeadMagic only | 100 | 54 | ~1.85 credits |
| Both with fallback | 142 (100 primary + 42 fallback) | 71 | ~2.0 credits |
The combined approach costs ~18% more per result than Datagma alone, but returns 22% more emails. For most B2B use cases where each valid contact has outreach value, that’s a positive trade.
Decision Matrix: Which Should Be Your Primary Provider?
| Your situation | Recommended primary |
|---|---|
| Mostly US enterprise contacts (Fortune 5000) | Datagma |
| EMEA-heavy list | LeadMagic |
| Mixed US + EMEA | Datagma primary, LeadMagic fallback |
| Mostly SMB contacts | LeadMagic |
| SaaS / tech vertical | Datagma |
| Recruiter sourcing candidates | LeadMagic (slightly better at career-transition profiles) |
| Agency building lists for clients | Test both with a 50-row sample first |
When Fallback Is the Whole Strategy
If your deal value is high enough that each found email justifies the cost — enterprise sales, executive recruiting, strategic business development — you should almost always enable fallback. The combined 71% hit rate versus either provider’s 54–58% is a meaningful lift on high-value lists.
If you’re enriching commodity lists where you’d accept a 55% hit rate, fallback at extra cost per row may not be worth it. But for any list where missing a contact has a real cost, running both providers is the conservative, correct choice.
Ready to run both providers on your list? LinkedIn Profile Enricher for Google Sheets — dual provider support with automatic fallback →