What Is Waterfall Enrichment?
Waterfall enrichment is a data enrichment method that queries multiple data providers to fill gaps in B2B contact and company records.
Traditionally, this process works sequentially. When a record is missing an email address, phone number, or other field, the system checks one provider first. If no data is returned, moves on to the next provider, then the next, until it either finds a match or exhausts all the options.
No single data provider covers every contact or company. One vendor might have strong email coverage for tech companies but weak phone data for healthcare. Another might excel at European contacts but miss North American records. Waterfall enrichment combines the strengths of multiple sources to increase your coverage rates for fields like work email, direct dial, job title, and company information.
The core problem this solves is simple: your CRM is full of incomplete records. Missing emails mean you can't run campaigns. Missing phone numbers block your SDRs from calling. Missing job titles make it impossible to target the right buyers. Waterfall enrichment fills those gaps by checking multiple databases until it finds what you need.
How Waterfall Enrichment Works
In a traditional sequential waterfall, the process looks like this:
When a record enters the enrichment flow, the system checks the first provider. If that provider returns data, enrichment stops and the record gets updated. If not, the system queries the next provider in the sequence.
Here's the basic workflow:
Record enters the workflow: A contact or company with missing fields triggers the enrichment process
First provider query: The system checks the top-priority data source
Conditional logic: If data is returned, the record is updated and the process ends; if not, the workflow continues and the system queries the next provider
Sequential fallback: The system moves through each provider in order until data is found or the list is exhausted
Final output: The enriched record is written back to the CRM or database
You configure the order based on what matters most to your team. Some teams start with a lower-cost provider to handle the easy lookups, then escalate to premium sources only when necessary. Others prioritize accuracy over cost and lead with their most reliable vendor.
The conditional logic of " is what makes this a waterfall. Each lookup depends on the result of the previous one. If Provider A finds an email, the system doesn't waste API calls checking Provider B. If Provider A comes up empty, the workflow cascades down to the next option.
Think of it like checking multiple stores for an item. You start at the closest store. If they don't have it, you try the next one. You keep going until you find what you need or run out of stores to check.
Benefits of Waterfall Enrichment
The primary advantages come down to coverage, cost, and control.
Higher data coverage: Combining multiple sources fills more gaps than relying on a single provider. One vendor might cover part of your target accounts. Adding two more could push that coverage much higher.
Cost control: You can configure cheaper sources first and reserve premium providers for records that need them. This keeps your cost-per-record down while still accessing high-quality data when it matters.
Improved deliverability: More accurate emails and phone numbers reduce bounce rates and wasted outreach. Poor data quality kills campaigns. Waterfall enrichment helps you avoid that.
Flexibility: You can swap providers in and out based on performance or contract changes. If a vendor's quality drops, you can demote them in the sequence or replace them entirely.
This method appeals to teams managing outbound at scale who need to maximize coverage without overpaying for redundant lookups. If you're running high-volume prospecting or ABM campaigns, incomplete data is a pipeline killer. Waterfall enrichment helps you get closer to full coverage without committing to a single vendor's limitations.
Limitations of Waterfall Enrichment
First-match doesn’t mean best match: Sequential waterfalls stop at the first returned value, not necessarily the freshest or highest-confidence one. A cheaper vendor queried first may populate the field even if a higher-quality provider would have returned better data.
Data inconsistency: Different providers may return conflicting information for the same contact. One source says the person is a VP of Sales. Another says Director of Revenue. You need rules to decide which to trust, and that adds complexity.
Maintenance overhead: Managing multiple vendor contracts, API keys, and rate limits adds operational work. Each provider has different pricing models, usage caps, and support channels. That's a lot to track.
Latency: Sequential lookups take longer than a single-source query. If you're enriching records on-demand during a sales call, waiting for three API calls to complete is a problem.
Credit Burn and Unpredictable Costs: Some enrichment platforms charge per data point and per lookup. For example:
Mobile phone: 10 credits
Revenue: 5 credits
Email: 2 credits
Suddenly a “simple” enrichment can cost 15–20 credits per contact. Multiply that by 5,000 contacts and costs escalate quickly, especially when refreshing data later consumes additional credits.
Quality variability: Cheaper providers often deliver lower accuracy. A bad email from a budget vendor still bounces. The cost savings don't matter if the data doesn't work.
No single source of truth: Stitching together data from multiple vendors makes it harder to trace where information originated. When a record is wrong, you can't easily identify which provider to blame or correct.
Teams scaling beyond a few thousand records per month often find the operational burden outweighs the cost savings. The time spent managing the waterfall, troubleshooting API failures, and reconciling conflicting data adds up. At some point, consolidating to a single high-quality provider becomes the more efficient choice.
Waterfall Enrichment vs. Single-Provider Data Platforms
The waterfall approach trades operational simplicity for flexibility and cost control. A comprehensive data platform like ZoomInfo takes the opposite approach.
Factor | Waterfall Enrichment | Single-Provider Platform |
|---|---|---|
Coverage | Aggregates multiple sources | One unified dataset |
Data quality | Varies by provider | Consistent verification standards |
Operational complexity | High (multiple APIs, contracts) | Low (single integration) |
Cost model | Pay per lookup across vendors | Subscription-based access |
Data freshness | Depends on each provider's refresh cycle | Continuous updates from unified system |
Support and accountability | Fragmented across vendors | Single point of contact |
Waterfall enrichment makes sense when you need niche coverage or want granular cost control. If you're targeting a specific vertical or geography where one provider dominates, adding them to your waterfall can fill gaps. If you're running lean and need to stretch your budget, using cheaper sources first can work.
But for organizations that need accurate data, simple workflows, and reliability at scale, a unified platform reduces friction and risk. You're not juggling multiple contracts or troubleshooting API failures across vendors. You're not reconciling conflicting data or building custom logic to handle edge cases. You get one integration, one support team, and one dataset with consistent quality standards.
The real cost of waterfall enrichment isn't just the per-lookup fees. It's the RevOps time spent managing the system. It's the sales time wasted on bad data. It's the opportunity cost of incomplete records sitting in your CRM instead of being worked.
Historically, companies either built waterfalls themselves or consolidated into a single high-quality provider to reduce friction.
Today, there’s a third approach.
How ZoomInfo Approaches Data Enrichment: Parallel Waterfall Inside GTM Studio
Waterfall Enrichment inside ZoomInfo GTM Studio takes a fundamentally different approach.
Instead of sequential lookups, GTM Studio:
Starts with ZoomInfo’s proprietary database — the world’s largest and highest-quality B2B dataset.
Automatically bridges remaining gaps using 25+ additional third-party vendors.
Queries those vendors in parallel, not sequentially.
Uses Intelligent Scoring to return the highest-confidence match available — not just the first one found.
This avoids the core weakness of traditional waterfalls: first-match limitations.
Rather than manually ranking Vendor A, then Vendor B, then Vendor C, the engine evaluates all supported vendors simultaneously and selects the best result based on freshness and accuracy signals.
No manual prioritization, maintainance of routing logic, or vendor management overhead.
And importantly, it’s included at no additional cost for GTM Studio customers.
That means no:
Incremental enrichment charges
Separate vendor credit pools
Pay-per-field fees
Refresh penalties
You get maximum coverage across people and company records — including contact data, firmographics, technographics, hiring signals, website activity, and intent — without burning credits for each individual data point.
Native CRM integration: Enrichment flows directly into Salesforce, HubSpot, and other systems without requiring middleware. No orchestration layer to manage. No API keys to rotate.
Intent and signal data: Beyond contact fields, ZoomInfo layers in buyer intent and engagement signals to prioritize outreach. You're not just filling in missing emails. You're identifying which accounts are actively researching solutions.
The difference shows up in how your team spends their time. With traditional, sequential waterfall enrichment, RevOps is constantly tweaking the sequence, managing vendor relationships, and troubleshooting data issues. With ZoomInfo, they're focused on building better targeting, improving conversion rates, and driving pipeline.
Why Parallel Waterfall Matters
Most enrichment tools require you to:
Rank vendors manually
Search vendors one at a time
Stop at the first match
That creates three problems:
Operational drag
Uncertainty about data freshness
Filled fields that aren’t necessarily the highest-confidence fields
Parallel waterfall solves these by:
Eliminating vendor prioritization logic
Selecting best-match rather than first-match
Consolidating enrichment inside a unified workflow
It combines the coverage benefits of multi-vendor enrichment with the simplicity of a single platform.
When Traditional Waterfall Enrichment Makes Sense
Waterfall enrichment is a reasonable choice in specific scenarios.
Early-stage teams: Startups with limited budgets may start with free tiers and cheaper providers before investing in a platform. If you're doing a few hundred lookups per month, the operational complexity is manageable.
Niche or regional targeting: Teams focused on specific geographies or industries may need specialty providers not covered by major platforms. If you're selling into Scandinavia or targeting biotech executives, a niche vendor might outperform broader databases.
Experimentation: Organizations testing multiple data sources before committing to a primary vendor. Running a waterfall lets you compare coverage and accuracy across providers before making a long-term decision.
However, as teams scale, the complexity of waterfall workflows often becomes a bottleneck. Most mid-market and enterprise organizations eventually consolidate to a primary data provider to reduce operational drag and improve data consistency. The time saved on vendor management and data reconciliation pays for the platform subscription.
If you're spending more than a few hours per week managing your enrichment stack, you've probably outgrown the waterfall approach. That's a signal to evaluate whether a unified platform would deliver better ROI.
Frequently Asked Questions About Waterfall Enrichment
What is the difference between waterfall enrichment and standard data enrichment?
Data enrichment is the broad practice of adding missing information to records. Waterfall enrichment is a specific method that queries multiple providers in sequence to maximize coverage.
How many data providers should you include in a waterfall enrichment workflow?
Two to five providers is a reasonable range. Adding more increases coverage but also adds complexity and cost.
What makes ZoomInfo’s waterfall different?
Traditional waterfalls run sequentially and stop at the first match. GTM Studio runs vendors in parallel and returns the highest-confidence match based on Intelligent Scoring — eliminating first-match limitations.
Does ZoomInfo charge per vendor lookup?
No. Waterfall Enrichment is available to all GTM Studio customers at no additional cost. There are no incremental vendor credit pools or per-field enrichment charges.
What happens when different providers return conflicting data in a waterfall enrichment workflow?
You need reconciliation logic to decide which source to trust. Most teams prioritize the first provider that returns data, but this can lead to accuracy issues if cheaper sources are queried first.
The Bottom Line for Waterfall Enrichment
Waterfall enrichment was created to solve a real problem: incomplete data blocks revenue.
Traditional sequential waterfalls increase coverage but introduce operational overhead, cost unpredictability, and first-match quality limitations.
ZoomInfo’s GTM Studio combines:
The industry’s most complete B2B database
25+ additional vendors
Parallel enrichment logic
Intelligent confidence scoring
Built-in source attribution
No incremental enrichment cost
So your team gets higher match rates, higher-confidence data, and predictable spend, without building and maintaining a waterfall yourself.
Ready to see it in action? Learn how GTM Studio powers free, high-confidence waterfall enrichment inside your revenue workflows.
