Why Teams Switch from Lusha to Evascrape
Lusha built a strong reputation in EU markets for clean B2B contact data, especially mobile phone numbers. The product is solid, but three patterns drive teams to look elsewhere: per-credit pricing that punishes high-volume users, seat licensing across teams, and the Chrome extension dependency that limits where you can use it.
Per-Credit Rationing Slows Outbound
Lusha gives you a monthly credit budget. Run a campaign needing 5,000 contacts and you blow the budget in week one. Evascrape charges $9 per 1,000 leads regardless of timing, no monthly rationing, no credit packs.
Chrome Extension Dependency
Lusha's primary workflow runs through a Chrome extension on LinkedIn. Bulk extraction beyond the extension is limited and costly. Evascrape works server-side: set your LinkedIn filters, get a CSV, no browser plugin required.
Per-Seat Licensing Across Teams
Lusha Pro at $39/seat/month × 10 reps = $4,680/year. Evascrape has no seats, your whole team uses one workspace and pays only for delivered leads.
Broader Source Coverage
Lusha is LinkedIn-focused. Evascrape adds <a href="/apollo-scraper">Apollo extraction</a> and a <a href="/google-maps-scraper">Google Maps email extractor</a>, two sources Lusha does not cover at all.