What the reviews say
Works well for fast, stable scraping with pagination, a clean UI and basic LinkedIn coverage, but fails on completeness and accuracy (few results, missing job titles), has intermittent reliability issues, and charges even when no results are returned.
| Theme | Sentiment | Said | What they mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does it return everything | 1 praised · 4 complained | 5 | supports pagination through resultsreturns only a few results“It seems the Job title filter doesn't work. Many false positives. Not clear how it uses the job title field - impossible to check from the output JSON” — 2/5 |
| Does it run | 1 praised · 2 complained | 3 | stable and responsive operationintermittent failures and downtime“Unfortunately, not working. I only get three results for the first company that I tried (which has 20 employees)” — 1/5 |
| Is the data right | 1 praised · 1 complained | 2 | generally accurate extracted datajob title filter not applied“Clean interface,easy configuration and accurate results.” — 5/5 |
| What it costs | 0 praised · 1 complained | 1 | charges customers even with no results“Overpriced. Charges even when no employee is found” — 1/5 |
| Setup and docs | 2 praised · 0 complained | 2 | clean interface and easy configurationprovides useful structured output“I like the pagination support and the structured output — it’s useful for preparing data for CRM or outreach workflows.” — 5/5 |
| How fast | 2 praised · 0 complained | 2 | fast retrieval of employee info“A useful tool for recruiters and market researchers who just need basic LinkedIn employee info fast.” — 5/5 |
| What it supports | 1 praised · 0 complained | 1 | covers basic LinkedIn employee fields |
Does it run
1 ↑ · 2 ↓ of 3Is the data right
1 ↑ · 1 ↓ of 2What it costs
0 ↑ · 1 ↓ of 1History
30 readings since 2026-09-25Alternatives on LinkedIn
The actors either side of #24 of 1,727, ranked by users in the last 30 days. Same platform, adjacent adoption — the comparable set.
| # | Actor | Grade | Price / 1k | Users /30d | Success | Rating | Age | Fresh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | B | RES$5.00 /1kfair price | 1,76015.1K total | 100.0% | 4.7 | 18m | aging | ||
| 20 | C | EVT$2.00 /1k post | 1,65917.4K total | 99.9% | 4.1 | 20m | aging | ||
| 21 | A | EVT$2.00 /1k post-reaction | 1,3995,875 total | 99.9% | 5.0 | 17m | fresh | ||
| 22 | C | RES$10.00 /1khigh price | 1,12063.7K total | 99.4% | 3.7 | 2.0y | aging | ||
| 23 | B | RES$4.00 /1kfair price | 1,1135,357 total | 99.2% | 3.4 | 13m | fresh | ||
| 24 | C | RES$10.00 /1khigh price | 1,05710.2K total | 99.8% | 2.9 | 18m | aging | This | |
| 25 | A | RES$2.00 /1kgood price | 9362,699 total | 99.9% | 5.0 | 15m | fresh | ||
| 26 | B | RES$1.00 /1kgood price | 9014,578 total | 99.9% | 4.7 | 11m | fresh | ||
| 27 | B | RES$5.00 /1kfair price | 8738,998 total | 93.8% | 5.0 | 21m | aging | ||
| 28 | B | EVT$29.00 /1k email-resolution | 8635,125 total | 100.0% | 5.0 | 11m | fresh | ||
| 29 | B | EVT$5.00 /1k job-scraped | 7834,244 total | 97.4% | 5.0 | 7m | fresh |