Apollo vs. Synce: Which Tool Delivers the Best Mobile Numbers?
Apollo vs. Synce: Which Tool Delivers the Best Mobile Numbers?
Why reliable data matters
When you're running outbound or sales campaigns (especially in competitive or niche markets), one thing often makes the difference: accurate, up-to-date mobile numbers.
Miss a valid number, and you may miss a deal or lead entirely.
To put data providers to the test, we ran a direct comparison: Apollo vs. Synce, using the same filters and target set, and then measured not just find rates, but overlap and divergence.
The Setup
We tested with 32 leads (for both tools), applying identical filters (industry, size, role, location), and only considering mobile (06-style) numbers, no landlines.
To put this to the test, we compared Apollo and Synce using identical filters:
Industry: Food and Beverage Manufacturing
Company size: 11 - 500 employees
Function: CEO & Directors
Location: Netherlands
Here’s how each tool performed in terms of raw “find rate”:
Apollo | Synce | |
|---|---|---|
Total leads | 32 | 32 |
Find rate | 31,3% (10/32) | 81,3% (26/32) |
Right off the bat, Synce shows a significantly higher find rate using the same lead set.
Overlap & Differences
Beyond just overall percentages, it’s illuminating to dig into how the two tools overlap or diverge in which contacts they find (or fail to find).
Scenario | Count |
|---|---|
Found by Synce, not Apollo | 17 |
Found by Apollo, not Synce | 1 |
Same number found | 7 |
Different number found | 2 |
Neither found a number | 5 |
A few observations:
Synce captured 17 leads that Apollo missed.
Apollo found just 1 mobile number that Synce did not.
For 7 contacts, both tools found exactly the same mobile number.
In 2 cases, both tools returned a number, but those numbers differed (raising questions about data freshness or accuracy).
For 5 leads, neither tool could find a mobile number.
What the Numbers Reveal
These results show more than just a higher find rate: they emphasize data completeness, coverage, and reliability.
Stronger coverage in niche sets: Synce’s ability to find 17 extra leads that Apollo missed suggests better depth or broader sources in certain segments.
Consistency matters: The fact that both tools differ on 2 numbers means you must question which one is correct; losing time calling wrong or outdated numbers is costly.
Transparency in misses: Apollo’s lower find rate and many “misses” show that its coverage gap is significant in this test.
Why Synce Is Leading in This Test
Based on the data above, here’s why Synce outperformed Apollo:
Higher yield on the same lead set
With 81,3% find rate vs 31,3%, Synce delivers far more usable numbers from the same investment in lead generation.More unique matches
Synce adds value by finding mobile numbers that Apollo didn’t (17 extra), which means incremental reach you wouldn’t otherwise get.Better data hygiene (fewer false positives)
When both tools return different numbers, the risk of outdated data increases. Synce’s stronger yield also suggests more reliable data sources or validation.Efficiency and ROI
If you pay per number or credit, Synce’s higher coverage reduces wasted credits on leads where no mobile number is found. The differential in unique finds (17 vs 1) compounds that efficiency.
In Summary
Both Apollo and Synce offer value in contact enrichment, but in this head-to-head, Synce emerges distinctly ahead when it comes to mobile number accuracy and reach. On the same 32-lead sample:
Synce achieved 81,3% find rate, compared to Apollo’s 31,3%.
Synce uniquely found 17 more leads than Apollo.
Only in a single case did Apollo deliver a number that Synce missed.
There were 2 mismatched numbers, which underscores the importance of validating results.
And 5 leads remain missing for both tools, a reminder no tool is perfect.
If you’re in a market or vertical where every reach counts, or operate in tight niches, Synce offers better coverage, cleaner data, and more reliable prospecting.
