Lusha Pricing: You Pay For What You Commit

Lusha publishes pricing, which already puts it ahead of ZoomInfo and Cognism for anyone trying to evaluate cost without a sales call. The complication is that the published number is not a price per lookup, it is a price for a committed annual volume, and the per-credit rate inside that commitment moves depending on how much you agree to buy upfront.

The practical consequence is unusual: two teams using Lusha identically, same number of lookups, same data, can be paying materially different effective rates, purely because one committed to a larger annual volume at signup.

As of 2026, monthly-equivalent pricing on annual billing runs from a Free tier through roughly $37.45 on Starter and $52.45 on Pro, up to $299.95 or more on Premium, which bundles a fixed seat count alongside the credit pool. Within a chosen plan, a slider sets how many credits you want per year, and the unit price falls as that committed number rises.

Reported discount thresholds cluster at specific volumes: around 30% off at 48,000 credits a year, roughly 35% at 72,000, and 40% or more at 96,000 and above on the Scale tier. Those are commitments, not rewards for eventual usage. Reaching 96,000 credits organically over a year on a smaller plan does not retroactively earn the 40% rate.

The single most important number for cost planning is not on the pricing page as a headline. Multiple 2026 breakdowns report that a phone reveal consumes somewhere between 5 and 10 times as many credits as an email lookup, varying by plan and by which underlying source supplies the number.

That ratio, not the plan price, determines the bill for most outbound teams. A credit allowance that looks generous for email enrichment empties quickly against a workflow built on mobile dials, and the shortfall arrives mid-cycle rather than at renewal.

Lusha credits reset monthly with no rollover. Capacity bought and not used in a slow month does not carry into a busy one, which penalizes exactly the usage pattern most teams actually have: seasonal, campaign-driven, or lumpy around hiring and launches.

Combined with the commitment-based discount structure, the incentive runs in an awkward direction. Committing to higher volume lowers the unit rate, but any month that comes in under the average wastes the difference outright.

Three inputs give a usable estimate. Count monthly email reveals and monthly phone reveals separately, then weight the phone figure by somewhere between five and ten to convert it into credit terms. Add the two, multiply by twelve, and check which discount threshold that annual figure clears. Then sanity-check against your worst month rather than your average, since that is the month where the allowance actually binds.

Run the result as cost per connected conversation, not cost per credit. A phone reveal that does not lead to a conversation consumed five to ten times the credits of an email that did.

For contrast: Kooperativa charges $499/mo, or $449/mo as a single annual payment, for unlimited requests across every endpoint, with no credit ledger, no commitment tier, and no reveal-type multiplier. The only ceiling is a shared 500 requests per minute rate limit, sized for stability rather than as a metering device.

The scope difference is the important caveat and it cuts against a direct swap: Lusha sells contact reveals, and Kooperativa does not produce email addresses or phone numbers at all. It covers profile and firmographic data, work history, titles, seniority, employee lists, headcount breakdowns, hiring signals, and job changes. A team whose spend is dominated by phone credits needs a contact-data vendor, and the flat-rate comparison does not apply to that part of the workload.