On 3 May 2026 Clay published one of the most rigorous phone data benchmarks we've seen in B2B sales. They tested 10 mobile number providers across 6,000+ contacts in North America, EMEA, and APAC, and had TitanX (formerly Phone Ready Leads) score every single number for accuracy and connect rates.
We read it, dug into the EMEA results, and immediately recognised our own stack. Bizzy runs a Prospeo + Forager waterfall for phone number enrichment. Turns out, that's exactly what Clay's data recommends as the top-tier combo for European coverage.
Here's what the numbers say, and what it means if you're selling into Europe. This article covers phone numbers only; for the full picture of ten providers on European coverage, sourcing, GDPR record and price, read our comparison of B2B data providers in Europe.
The study at a glance
Clay partnered with TitanX to enrich 6,000 B2B contacts through all 10 providers, generating 9,806 mobile numbers total. TitanX then scored every number using a proprietary algorithm that includes manual cold calling and 11 additional data signals.
The scoring breaks down like this:
P1 - Verified, high propensity to answer. Connects at least 25% of the time.
P2 - Verified, lower propensity. Connects roughly 4-10% of the time.
P3 - Unverified, very low propensity. Under 1% connection rate.
NA (Need attention) - Inactive, disconnected, or wrong person. 0% connection rate.
The headline finding: only 23% of all numbers were P1 or "Good" quality. That means more than three out of four phone numbers in your average enrichment run are either unreliable or outright useless.
That stat alone should make anyone rethink their data provider strategy.
Full credit to Clay for running this. Read their complete analysis and the test methodology.
Why EMEA is a different game
Most phone data providers are built for North America first. EMEA coverage is often an afterthought: lower match rates, less accurate numbers, and weaker verification infrastructure.
Clay's data confirms this. The providers that dominate NAMER coverage rankings don't necessarily show up in the EMEA top three. The EMEA leaderboard looks completely different:
EMEA coverage (number of mobile numbers returned):
Prospeo: 881 numbers (the most of any provider)
Forager: 813 numbers
Datagma: 730 numbers
EMEA accuracy (quality score):
Forager: 38% (best accuracy across all regions)
Prospeo: 30%
Other providers trail behind
If you're focused on European markets, this ranking matters more than the global averages most vendors promote.
What Bizzy runs, and why it maps to the data
Bizzy uses a three-layer waterfall for phone numbers: Prospeo → Cleon1 → Forager.
We didn't pick these providers randomly. Bizzy is built for European B2B data, and when we evaluated phone number sources, this combination consistently delivered the best results for EMEA coverage and accuracy.
Clay's independent benchmark now confirms two of our three providers from the outside:
Prospeo delivers the highest EMEA coverage volume (881 numbers from Clay's test set), so we run it first to cast the widest net in European markets
Cleon1 adds a second enrichment layer to pick up what Prospeo missed
Forager delivers the highest accuracy across all regions, including a 38% quality score in EMEA, closing out the waterfall with the best-verified numbers
This is also exactly what Clay recommends. Their suggested waterfall order starts with "high-accuracy providers", and the three they name are Forager, Prospeo, and Leadmagic.
We're running the core of Clay's optimal EMEA waterfall as our default stack.
The waterfall approach matters more than any single provider
One of the clearest takeaways from Clay's research: no single provider covers everything. The providers with the most numbers don't always have the best accuracy. The most accurate providers don't always return the most results.
That's why waterfall enrichment works. You run Contact A through Provider 1 first. If there's no match, it falls through to Provider 2. If that misses too, Provider 3 picks it up. Each layer adds incremental coverage without duplicating cost.
For EMEA specifically, running Prospeo → Cleon1 → Forager means:
Prospeo leads with coverage - the widest net in European markets fires first
Cleon1 adds a second enrichment pass to catch what Prospeo missed
Forager closes with accuracy - the best-verified numbers in the region fill the remaining gaps
You're not paying twice for the same number: the waterfall only fires the next provider when the previous one misses
What this means for teams selling into Europe
If you're building pipeline in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, or anywhere else in the EU, here's the practical takeaway:
Don't rely on a single phone data provider. Clay's data shows that even the best individual provider only covers a fraction of the market. A waterfall approach, starting with the strongest EMEA providers, is the only way to get reliable coverage.
Check where your provider actually performs. Global coverage numbers are misleading. A provider with 50% coverage worldwide might have 15% coverage in Belgium. Ask for EMEA-specific match rates before committing.
Accuracy matters more than volume. Having 1,000 phone numbers sounds impressive until you realise 770 of them are P3 or worse. Clay's finding that only 23% of numbers are genuinely usable should be a wake-up call. Prioritise providers that score well on quality, not just quantity.
Consider GDPR from the start. This is something Clay's US-focused benchmark doesn't cover, but it's critical for European teams. Not every provider sources numbers in a way that's compliant with EU data regulations. Bizzy works exclusively with GDPR-compliant sources and stores data primarily in the EU (see our GDPR page). That's not optional when you're operating in Europe. If phone-verified mobiles are your whole game, Cognism's Diamond Data is the specialist to compare against; it is the one provider in our wider comparison that publishes a phone-verified figure.
The bottom line
Clay ran the most transparent phone data benchmark we've seen. Their conclusion - use a waterfall, lead with high-accuracy providers - maps directly to what Bizzy already does for EU-focused enrichment with our Prospeo → Cleon1 → Forager stack.
If you're selling into European markets and your current phone data feels unreliable, there's a good chance your provider stack is the problem. The data to fix it is now public.
Curious how Bizzy handles phone enrichment for European markets? Book a demo and we'll show you the stack in action.
Weighing a Lusha alternative? See how Bizzy compares once you need the company behind the number. Or start from the ten-provider comparison.
Read next: what to do with the numbers once you have them is in B2B cold calling in Europe, and what the rules allow per country is in is B2B cold outreach legal in Europe?
Need one number rather than a provider? How to find a company's phone number lists the free routes in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Frequently asked questions
Which mobile number provider is best for EMEA? In Clay's benchmark of 3 May 2026, Prospeo returned the most EMEA mobile numbers (881 from a 6,000-contact test set), Forager had the best accuracy (a 38% quality score, the highest across all regions) and Datagma came third on volume with 730. The providers that lead in North America do not lead in Europe.
What is a phone data waterfall? Running several providers in sequence, so that each one only searches the contacts the previous one missed. Bizzy runs Prospeo, then Cleon1, then Forager: the widest European net first, the most accurate source last. Clay's own recommended order starts with the high-accuracy providers it names, Forager and Prospeo among them.
How accurate are B2B mobile numbers? Less than most teams assume. Of the 9,806 numbers in the benchmark, only 23% scored P1, meaning verified and connecting at least a quarter of the time. More than three in four numbers from an average enrichment run are unreliable or unusable, which is why the waterfall and the verification step matter more than any single provider.