ProspectSonar vs Manual Research: A Timed Experiment on 10 Real Companies

As a salesperson, you know how crucial accurate research is when it comes to prospecting. However, the traditional way of doing things, manual research, can be a significant time-drain, leading to subpar outcomes. That's why we conducted a timed experiment using ProspectSonar, our B2B prospect research and sales intelligence tool, to see how it stacks up against manual research methods. We chose 10 real companies and set out to uncover the facts.

In this post, we'll walk you through the experiment, share our findings, and reveal which method emerged victorious. Whether you're an agency founder, startup founder, or seasoned sales professional, this post will give you the insights you need to take your research game to the next level.

Experiment Design

To keep things fair, we chose 10 real companies across various industries, each with a decent size and a solid reputation. Our goal was to see how quickly and accurately we could find the right contacts, issues, and opportunities using both ProspectSonar and manual research methods.

For manual research, our team worked independently, scouring the internet, searching on LinkedIn, and making phone calls. For ProspectSonar, we used our tool's advanced features, such as niche and location filtering, decision maker identification, and issues detection.

Data Collection and Analysis

For each company, we collected data on the time spent researching, the quality of the leads generated, and the accuracy of the information found. We also kept track of the number of dead ends, incorrect contacts, and missed opportunities.

After analyzing the data, we calculated the average time spent on manual research versus ProspectSonar, as well as the overall quality score of each method. The results were fascinating, to say the least.

Results and Findings

The experiment yielded some surprising results. On average, manual research took around 3 hours and 45 minutes per company, while ProspectSonar clocked in at just under 30 minutes. That's a whopping difference of over 2.5 hours per company!

As for the quality score, ProspectSonar averaged a 92% score, while manual research barely scraped 60%. This means that 30% of our leads via manual research were dead ends or incorrect contacts.

But what about accuracy? ProspectSonar's issues detection feature correctly identified 95% of the issues, while manual research only hit 70%. We found that our tool's advanced algorithms picked up on subtle details and connections that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Lessons Learned

The experiment taught us some valuable lessons about the power of ProspectSonar. First and foremost, it's clear that our tool saves time and delivers better quality leads. Second, the accuracy provided by ProspectSonar's advanced features is unparalleled.

Lastly, we learned that manual research can be a significant waste of time and resources. By using ProspectSonar, sales teams can free up valuable time to focus on high-leverage activities like outreach, follow-ups, and closing deals.