Jorge LewisDisclosure: GTM Bud is our product. We include it alongside competitors to give you a complete picture, and we call out its limitations honestly.
Skrapp vs Hunter.io is the email finder aisle’s purest workflow fork: one tool rides a Chrome extension through LinkedIn and Sales Navigator pages, the other starts from a company domain and maps every address pattern it has observed. The review scores sit a tenth of a star apart, the entry stickers about ten dollars apart, and nearly every detailed comparison ranking for this query was published by a rival of one or both. This comparison prices both meters honestly, prints the conflicts with their sources, and names the question neither pricing page will ask for you.
We buy this category the expensive way. Our parent agency, Referral Program Pros, has booked over 7,000 meetings across more than 4,000 outbound campaigns, and we built GTM Bud on that same agency playbook, backed by a written guarantee: 5 percent positive replies on LinkedIn or 1.5 percent on email, or a full refund. A guarantee like that only survives when found addresses hold up in live sends, so we score both tools against what breaks in real campaigns.
One sourcing note up front. Neither vendor’s site was directly reachable from our research environment, so every figure below rests on named third-party coverage, provenance flagged inline. The tier maps live in our Skrapp pricing and Hunter.io pricing breakdowns; this article is for choosing between the two. Verify every number at checkout.
The short answer
Pick Hunter.io if your prospecting starts from company domains: its ladder is the most transparent in the category, $49, $149, and $299 monthly or $34, $104, and $209 annual for 2,000, 10,000, and 25,000 credits, per 2026 breakdowns from MarketBetter, Leadhaste, and Costbench, with the meter documented at 1 credit to find plus 0.5 to verify in Hunter’s own help center. Pick Skrapp if your prospecting lives inside Sales Navigator and you want the extension habit with the friendlier billing promises: an entry tier reported between $39 and $49 for 1,000 credits, rollover per Prospeo and Emelia, and a Fair Credit Policy that reportedly charges nothing for invalid results. Pick neither if the budget line says meetings, because both tools stop at the address.
Skrapp vs Hunter.io at a glance
Every figure is attributed, and every disagreement between sources is expanded below.
| Dimension | Skrapp | Hunter.io |
|---|---|---|
| Category | LinkedIn-first extension finder with bundled verifier | Domain-first finder and verifier with a convenience sender |
| Entry price | Disputed: $39/mo per Prospeo and Software Advice, $49 per TrustRadius and Modern Inbound | $49/mo, $34 annual, per MarketBetter, Leadhaste, and Costbench |
| Entry credits | 1,000, or 2,000 per Emelia | 2,000 |
| Free tier | Disputed: 50 to 100 credits/mo, or 150 lifetime per Modern Inbound | Disputed: 25 searches plus 50 verifications, or unified 50 credits |
| Billing rule | Valid and catch-all results charged, invalid free, per Emelia | 1 credit per found email, 0.5 per verification, misses free |
| Credit rollover | Reported yes on paid plans, per Prospeo and Emelia | No equivalent, monthly pool |
| Database claim | 200M+ contacts, vendor-stated | About 107M per Cleanlist, about 117M per Skrapp’s counter-page |
| G2 rating (Nov 2026) | 4.4 to 4.5 across roughly 274 to 354 reviews | 4.4 across roughly 624 to 652 reviews |
| Phone numbers | None | None |
| Who builds the campaign | You | You |
The last row is shared, and it decides more pipelines than everything above it.
How do Skrapp and Hunter.io pricing actually compare?
Skrapp costs a reported $39 per month for 1,000 finder credits at entry, or about $30 billed annually, per Prospeo’s 2026 breakdown and Software Advice, while Hunter.io costs $49 per month for 2,000 credits on Starter, or $34 billed annually, per 2026 breakdowns from MarketBetter, Leadhaste, and Costbench. Above entry, Skrapp’s reported ladder runs $99 for 5,000 credits, $149 for 10,000, and $199 for 20,000, with Enterprise from $349 monthly, while Hunter runs $149 for 10,000 and $299 for 25,000 with a flat 30 percent annual discount. By our own division, an entry credit costs about 3.9 cents on Skrapp and about 2.5 cents on Hunter at the monthly stickers. Every Skrapp figure is a third-party snapshot of a vendor page our research environment could not reach, and the entry sticker itself is disputed between $39 and $49, so verify both ladders at the live checkout.
Hunter’s side of that paragraph is the stable one. November 2026 checks from Costbench and Noon print the same $49, $149, and $299 ladder the earlier guides did, and Hunter’s help center confirms the 2,000, 10,000, and 25,000 allocations plus a 50-credit free plan. One drifting figure is worth flagging: Modern Inbound’s 2026 comparison prints Hunter’s entry at $34 per month for 500 credits, matching the older searches-plus-verifications metering Cleanlist and GrowthHackSuite also described rather than the unified credit system. Treat the 500-credit reading as the previous packaging, not a second live price.
Skrapp’s side is where the record argues with itself. The entry sticker is printed at $39 by Prospeo and Software Advice, at $49 by TrustRadius, Modern Inbound, and the Typpout, Derrick, and SyncGTM ladder our Skrapp alternatives guide relayed, and at $29 annual by PulseSignal; the allowance is 1,000 credits in most breakdowns but 2,000 in Emelia’s September 2026 guide; Enterprise lands at $349 monthly and $262 annual per Prospeo and Emelia against Toolradar’s flat $281. When that many motivated observers cannot agree on one page, the page has been moving.
Does Skrapp really charge only for deliverable results?
Skrapp reportedly charges a credit only when a lookup returns a valid or catch-all address. Emelia’s 2026 guide describes a Fair Credit Policy under which invalid and unknown results cost nothing, both Emelia and Prospeo report that a catch-all result still consumes one credit, and the one dissent on record is Typpout’s breakdown, which describes a credit per lookup attempt. Hunter.io meters differently: a found email costs 1 credit and a verification 0.5 more, per Hunter’s own help center, while a search returning nothing reportedly costs nothing, per GrowthHackSuite’s 2026 credit explainer. The practical difference lands on catch-all domains, which verification providers commonly estimate at 12 to 20 percent of B2B domains: Skrapp bills those addresses as found, Hunter’s half-credit verification flags them before you send, and neither vendor can promise a catch-all inbox exists.
That clause decides real cost more than either sticker does. If your market skews toward catch-all mail servers, a meaningful share of Skrapp’s charged results are exactly the addresses most likely to bounce, lifting the effective price per safe-to-send contact above every per-credit figure here. Hunter charges the verification tax explicitly instead: a campaign-ready contact costs 1.5 credits, so Starter’s 2,000 credits yield roughly 1,333 finished contacts, about 3.7 cents each. One more dispute worth printing: Modern Inbound claims Skrapp skips built-in verification, while ZeroBounce describes the $39 tier bundling 2,000 verifier credits. Both sell competing products; the safer read is that a verifier exists but its stamp still needs your own bounce test.
Rollover splits the meters the same way. Prospeo’s 2026 breakdown says unused Skrapp credits roll over month to month, Emelia frames rollover as a paid-plan unlock, and Hunter’s pool simply resets each cycle. For an uneven pipeline that is a real advantage, provided the checkout confirms it, because no source prints a rollover cap.
Which workflow does each finder actually fit?
Skrapp is built for prospecting that starts on a LinkedIn profile. Its Chrome extension pulls emails from LinkedIn and Sales Navigator pages, backed by a database Skrapp says holds more than 200 million B2B contacts, a vendor-stated figure no third party audits. Its own counter-page targeting Hunter prints that 200M+ claim against roughly 117 million emails for Hunter, while Cleanlist’s 2026 comparison printed Hunter at about 107 million: even the rival-printed denominator drifts. What Skrapp lacks at every tier, per 2026 coverage from Woodpecker and ZoomInfo’s Pipeline blog, is a sequencer: no follow-ups, no campaigns, no sending of any kind.
Hunter is built for prospecting that starts from a company. Its Domain Search maps an organization’s address pattern in seconds, the feature nearly every 2026 review singles out, and its Campaigns tool sends basic sequences through your own connected inboxes, capped at 2,500 recipients per campaign and 3 connected accounts on Starter, per Hunter’s help center pricing FAQ and breakdowns from GrowthHackSuite, Leadhaste, and SyncGTM. What Hunter does not have is any LinkedIn channel: no Sales Navigator extraction and no LinkedIn integration, per 2026 reviews from Salesrobot and Enrich, a boundary our full Hunter.io review weighs in detail.
Match the meter to the motion and the verdict writes itself. Modern Inbound’s 2026 comparison calls it for Hunter for most B2B teams, with Skrapp’s edge confined to LinkedIn-first workflows; Modern Inbound sells its own outbound service, so read that verdict as a rival’s, but it matches the structural split here. A Sales Navigator-led team buying Hunter gets a finder that cannot read its main prospecting surface, and a domain-led team buying Skrapp gets an extension pointed at pages it never opens. If the real question is volume beyond either finder, our Hunter.io vs Apollo.io comparison covers the database branch, and the wider exits live in our Hunter.io alternatives roundup.
What do the review scores actually say?
Hunter.io holds a 4.4 out of 5 rating on G2 across roughly 624 to 652 reviews depending on the page and date, while Skrapp.io prints between 4.4 and 4.5 across roughly 274 to 354, per our November 2026 snapshots of G2’s compare pages. Skrapp’s average edges higher on some pages, but Hunter’s review base is nearly double the size, so a tenth of a star on the thinner base moves with far fewer votes. TrustRadius scores the same pair at 7.6 for Hunter against 7.4 for Skrapp out of 10. The honest reading is a statistical tie on satisfaction carrying an asymmetry in evidence: Hunter’s score is better established, Skrapp’s is thinner and drifts between snapshots. Neither score measures data accuracy, because no review aggregator audits a contact database, and the accuracy record below is messier than either star rating.
The matchup is popular enough that the aggregators run it in threes: the G2 comparison page sits beside three-way pages against Snov.io and VoilaNorbert, and TrustRadius runs its own three-way with Apollo. Real teams shop this exact fork.
On accuracy, the record is vendor claims against rival tests. Skrapp advertises verification accuracy of up to 97 percent, a self-reported claim Toolradar relays alongside a 92 percent search success figure, while SalesRobot’s test-driven 2026 write-up, from a competitor, places the real-world match rate at roughly 65 to 75 percent of lookups with only about 42 to 48 percent of returned addresses deliverable. Hunter’s third-party range spans roughly 71 to 91 percent valid, per Cleanlist’s 50-domain matchup, GrowthHackSuite’s 500-email verification test, and Emailchaser’s 100-contact run, every tester a rival. No independent audit of either database exists, so the only number that binds is the bounce rate you measure on a 100-contact sample of your own ideal customer profile. Our best email finder tools roundup runs the same math across the category.
What neither finder puts on the table
Here is what the versus framing hides: a found address is the cheapest ingredient in outbound, and neither meter prices anything past it. Whichever finder wins your spreadsheet, someone still has to build the list, write messages that earn replies, warm the senders, sequence across channels, and chase follow-ups for weeks. Skrapp hands you addresses scraped from the profiles you visit and stops. Hunter hands you addresses plus a capped convenience sender you operate. Based on data from over 4,000 outbound campaigns run by our parent agency, Referral Program Pros, targeting and message quality move reply rates far more than the data-quality gap between two finders, and both of those jobs sit outside every Skrapp and Hunter tier.
GTM Bud inverts the purchase: you define your ideal customer profile, and the platform researches matching prospects, sources and verifies contact data inside each campaign, writes personalized messages from the playbooks our agency uses daily, and runs coordinated LinkedIn and email sequences through to booked meetings, with no credit meter anywhere. The honest limitation is the mirror image of both tools: no database to browse, no extension, no export button, so if raw lists for recruiting or CRM enrichment are the requirement, Skrapp or Hunter serves you better.
Frequently asked questions about Skrapp vs Hunter.io
Do Skrapp and Hunter.io have free plans?
Both reportedly do, and both shapes are disputed in print. Hunter’s free tier is described as 25 searches plus 50 verifications per month by Cleanlist and GrowthHackSuite, but as a unified 50 credits by Hunter help center coverage, MarketBetter, and Leadhaste. Skrapp’s is printed at 100 credits by Capterra, G2, Prospeo, and Toolradar, at 50 by Emelia and Software Advice, and as 150 lifetime credits by Modern Inbound, a rival. Either allowance covers an accuracy spot check, not a campaign list.
Can you use Skrapp and Hunter.io together?
Yes, because the two tools start from different inputs. Skrapp’s extension pulls candidates from Sales Navigator pages while Hunter’s domain search maps a company’s address pattern, and some teams run Hunter verification as an independent pass over extension results before sending. The price is two subscriptions and two credit meters, so most small teams are better served by one finder plus a dedicated verifier.
Do Skrapp or Hunter.io find phone numbers?
No. Derrick’s 2026 pricing guide describes Skrapp as email-only at every tier, and Hunter is email only as well, a gap 2026 comparisons from Cleanlist and LeadMagic flag consistently. A phone-led motion needs a second provider on top of either tool, and phone-capable finders like Wiza or UpLead fit that job better.
Do Skrapp or Hunter.io run LinkedIn outreach for you?
No. Skrapp’s Chrome extension reads LinkedIn and Sales Navigator pages to find emails but sends nothing on the channel, and 2026 reviews from Salesrobot and Enrich flag that Hunter has no LinkedIn integration of any kind. Neither tool researches prospects, writes copy, or manages follow-up. If booked meetings are the goal rather than a contact export, automated lead generation sources and verifies the data inside each campaign and runs coordinated LinkedIn and email sequences end to end, backed by a reply-rate guarantee.
Is Skrapp more accurate than Hunter.io?
No published number settles it, because every figure in the record is vendor-stated or rival-published. Skrapp advertises verification accuracy of up to 97 percent, while SalesRobot’s test, from a competitor, reports about 42 to 48 percent of returned addresses deliverable in its samples. Hunter’s third-party results span roughly 71 to 91 percent valid across Cleanlist, GrowthHackSuite, and Emailchaser, all rivals as well. The only audit that binds is your own 100-contact bounce test run through both free tiers.
Buy the extension, the domain search, or the meetings
The Skrapp vs Hunter.io decision resolves into the workflow question both pricing pages skip. LinkedIn-first prospecting should take Skrapp: the extension habit, the reported rollover, and the Fair Credit Policy, priced with open eyes about an entry sticker the coverage cannot pin down, a catch-all clause that bills the riskiest addresses, and a 97 percent accuracy claim a rival’s test answered with 42 to 48 percent deliverable. Domain-first prospecting should take Hunter: the transparent $49 to $299 ladder per MarketBetter, Leadhaste, and Costbench, the documented 1.5-credit campaign-ready contact, and the better-established 4.4 G2 score, priced with equally open eyes about a finder with no LinkedIn channel and a sender capped at 3 inboxes on Starter. Either way you bought raw material, and across the 4,000-plus campaigns our agency has run, raw material never once booked the meeting. If meetings are the line your budget actually names, start with GTM Bud’s done-for-you outbound: $600 per month per connected LinkedIn account with 1,000 leads included, a 14-day trial, and the guarantee that closes the loop: 5 percent positive replies on LinkedIn or 1.5 percent on email, or a full refund.