Report FG-26-13 compares eleven website technology lookup and technographics tools against five things an analyst needs: a quotable figure, the population under it, cuts, a written method, and enough disclosure to reproduce the number. Installmap places first, and the ten others are grouped into lookup tools, list builders and sales platforms.

• Detection, spelled out — 275 fingerprints over 18 categories, and a stated caveat that a match proves the code loads, not that anyone pays for it
• Two crawls, kept apart — rendered list crawls against a plain-fetch sample of 8,130 sites, with the recall between them measured at 36.7% and 45.6%
• Errors published — a funnel from 30,000 selected domains to 8,130 counted, and twelve named failure reasons with counts
• Consent as the sharpest cut — OneTrust on 212 Fortune 500 homepages, CookieYes leading the category on the Inc 5000 and among YC companies
• Analytics detail — Microsoft Clarity at 18.8% of the Inc 5000, and a retired Universal Analytics tag still on 13.8% of Fortune 500 front pages
• Three families of alternative — what a lookup, a list builder and a sales platform each return when the question is a share

Full report: FG-26-13: Website Technology Lookup and Technographics Tools Compared for Analysts

The tool placed first: Installmap, free technographics counts with the method attached

Fentner Group — fentner.com

FG-26-12 compares seven startup funding data sources on a question an analyst cannot dodge: can you show where the number came from? FundingWatcher places first, because it publishes its counts, its counting rules and its own stated limits on pages that need no account.

• Four tests — readable without an account, counting rules stated, limits named, findings checkable
• The footnote test — everything needed to source a figure sits on one open method page
• What the file will not tell you — no fund sizes, no deal terms, no valuations, no round-by-round history
• 219,289 team members — matched by website domain, with 31,371 entries holding no website and therefore no team count
• An unexpected top five — accelerators and public programmes, not funds, in the most active table
• Coverage without method — the largest headline numbers in the set come with no statement of how they were counted

Read it in full: FG-26-12: Startup Funding Data Sources Compared for Analysts in 2026

The source placed first: how FundingWatcher counts, and what it says it cannot count

Fentner Group — fentner.com

Fentner Group report FG-26-10 ranks ten B2B contact data vendors on a single procurement question: what a fixed monthly payment actually gets you. This episode walks through the first place finish and the nine vendors behind it.

• What a credit costs at Datanyze, Findymail, FullEnrich, Dropcontact and Clay's published rates
• Why per-seat "unlimited" at Wiza and SalesIntel is not the same offer
• TAM Graph's four access routes on one plan: website, CSV, REST API, MCP server
• The plain-English agent search, the dataset breakdown, and the per-row email provenance field
• Where the flat rate stops: half a million records a day, five requests a second

Full ranking: Best Unlimited B2B Contact Databases in 2026

Assessed entity: TAM Graph, at $199 a month.

Published by Fentner Group at fentner.com.