anVendor
Sign inGet started
All comparisons
Enterprise account intelligenceBy anVendor·Published ·Updated

anVendor vs Enlyft

Compare Enlyft’s enterprise account data with anVendor’s self-service SaaS checks. Real domain examples cover public Enlyft pages, not its full product.

10 public pages only · 316 published relationships

Published relationships found

anVendor

38.9%123 / 316 found

Enlyft public pages

0.9%3 / 316 found

121

anVendor only

2

Both found

1

Enlyft only

Public pages exposed 80 technology names. These bars measure that public surface, not Enlyft’s full commercial stacks, API or MCP coverage. Positive-reference recall, not precision; references can be old. A missing result does not prove non-use.

Features & integration access

FeatureEnlyftanVendor
API

Yes · custom integrations

Open API; available datasets and entitlements are arranged with Enlyft.

Official source ↗

Yes · REST API

Company analysis, service checks and customer discovery.

Official source ↗
MCP

Yes · official server

Company enrichment, technologies and buying signals; key from account manager.

Official source ↗

Yes · official server

Connect AI clients to the same analysis, discovery and scan operations.

Official source ↗
Usage depth

Modelled IT footprint

Enterprise account and technology intelligence; full product not tested.

Official source ↗

Estimated employee adoption

Where available; use signals do not verify paid seats.

Spend

Modelled IT budgets

Commercial spend intelligence exists; numerical estimates were not collected.

Official source ↗

Estimated annual SaaS ranges

Published plans with estimated usage or size; USD, not invoices.

API/MCP availability describes documented products, not benchmarked results. Access and datasets may depend on the plan. On narrow screens, scroll the table sideways.

Methodology, tested services & customer references

Companies checked: Atlassian (atlassian.com), Canva (canva.com), Shopify (shopify.com), Okta (okta.com), HubSpot (hubspot.com), Databricks (databricks.com), OpenAI (openai.com), Ramp (ramp.com), Stripe (stripe.com) and Airbnb (airbnb.com). We selected well-known technology companies often named in customer references, with roughly fewer than 15,000 staff and matching website and corporate domains. This is a selected sample, not a representative market survey.

The starting point: vendors’ own customer logos and case studies. A company logo, customer story or testimonial published by a service vendor supplied a reference pair: for example, Stripe named by BrowserStack becomes stripe.com × BrowserStack. We then checked whether each collected tool result named that vendor or a matching product.

The reference set contains 316 relationships from 207 vendors: 175 involving vendors in anVendor's catalogue, reviewed individually, plus 141 involving additional vendors. For the additional group, a named product belonging to the vendor counted. Three SendGrid references duplicated Twilio relationships and were excluded.

What the percentages mean. On competitor pages, found ÷ published reference pairs is positive-reference recall. There are no verified negatives, so this does not measure precision. References may be old, describe one team or favour prominent companies. The catalogue subset favours anVendor's coverage; the added vendors came from collected tool lists, so vendors no method reported are omitted. We build anVendor and did not independently verify paid contracts. Missing evidence does not establish non-use.

A separate category analysis: the visibility infographic starts with 714 anVendor findings across 266 distinct services at those ten companies, rather than the 316 published reference pairs. Each finding is classified by service category and checked for traces in website/DNS/infrastructure results, job signals, both or neither. Its percentages are shares of anVendor findings, not retrieval accuracy. BuiltWith covers Stripe only, Sumble its Tech Stack tabs; the collected surfaces do not represent every competitor's full product.

Pricing: 20 selected GitHub estimates use published plans and estimated usage or company size. Vendr's saved GitHub benchmark covers 984 purchases from a different population. The interval overlap provides context; no named company's invoice was checked. Results were saved at different times, rather than collected simultaneously.

Download all 316 reference pairs and source links (CSV)

All 207 tested reference vendors

Each name links to a vendor-published reference page. The CSV maps every company-service pair to its source; this list describes the reference set, not anVendor's entire catalogue or all technologies returned by competitors.

Enlyft combines enterprise technographics, firmographics and account intelligence. anVendor offers self-service company-service checks for SaaS prospecting, with estimated adoption and annual spend. Our numerical comparison covers Enlyft's public company pages; it cannot rank the full Enlyft product.

What each tool sees

Enlyft's technology directory supports researching installed bases. Its IT footprint and budget models help with enterprise segmentation. Those are broader account attributes than one company's estimated spend on a particular SaaS vendor.

 EnlyftanVendor
What it observesTechnology usage data, firmographics and modelled account attributesCompany-service evidence found through live scans
SaaS behind a loginYes — enterprise technographics include internal softwareCoverage includes CRM, HR, design, documents, ticketing, code hosting and storage
Depth inside a companyIT footprint, SaaS/cloud adoption indicators and other account contextEstimated adoption to help assess the scope of use
Spend figureModelled annual IT spend; full company data was outside this testEstimated annual spend ranges from sourced plans and estimated usage; estimated rates labeled
Runs tool → companiesYes — installed-base lists and account targetingYes — find companies with evidence of using a competitor
Best atEnterprise account enrichment, segmentation and targetingSaaS prospecting beyond website visibility, with live checks on demand

Public pages: 80 named technologies

The ten collected Enlyft pages claimed 2,015 vendor records in total but exposed only 80 technology names. Those visible names retrieved 3 of the 316 published relationships; anVendor retrieved 123. This describes public visibility, not Enlyft's commercial recall. The full stacks and numerical IT spend were not available to this comparison.

On real company domains

 Enlyft · public pagesanVendor
canva.com · DocuSignFoundFound
stripe.com · FormaNot foundFound
hubspot.com · NicereplyFoundNot found

“Found” means the collected result named that vendor or a matching product. “Not found” means it was absent from that result, not that the company does not use it.

Published customer references: canva.com · DocuSign; stripe.com · Forma; hubspot.com · Nicereply. These references supply the yardstick; the table reports our saved tool results.

The Stripe company page illustrates the format: a vendor total, a few named technologies and an invitation to obtain more data. Its advertised total is not a list of individually inspectable matches.

How to read the results

We compared Atlassian, Canva, Shopify, Okta, HubSpot, Databricks, OpenAI, Ramp, Stripe and Airbnb against 316 customer relationships published by 207 vendors. Of these, 175 involve vendors in anVendor's catalogue and 141 involve vendors outside it. We reviewed matches individually for the first group; in the second, a named product of the vendor counted.

This measures how many published relationships each method retrieves, not precision or the complete stack. Customer references can be old, favour well-known companies and omit vendors none of the methods reported. We build anVendor; its detections were not independently verified as paid contracts. See the methodology, tested services and published reference links.

Which to use

  • Enlyft: enterprise enrichment, installed-base targeting and modelled account attributes.
  • anVendor: self-service live checks and estimates for supported company-service pairs.

Request a matched account sample from Enlyft before comparing its full coverage with anVendor.

Competitor use can signal a need in the category and help your team qualify a lead. It does not establish budget, dissatisfaction or intent to switch. Check the account against your ideal customer profile and identify a reason to reconsider before outreach. Spend ranges are estimates, not invoices or guaranteed deal sizes.

anVendor may reuse recent findings. Results less than 30 days old are treated as fresh; an already purchased result can be reopened without another charge. Choose Refresh to request a new paid live scan. Empty or failed checks return their credits.

Frequently asked questions

Does Enlyft’s three-match result measure its full coverage?

No. Only 80 technology names visible on ten public company pages were scored. Full Enlyft stacks and numerical IT spend were outside the test; the public-page count cannot rank commercial coverage.

Is Enlyft’s IT spend the same as anVendor’s spend range?

No. Enlyft models broader IT spend and account attributes. anVendor estimates annual spend for a detected company-service relationship. Neither is an invoice for that company.

Suggest a correction · Sources and estimate limitations

Related

Find companies using your competitors’ SaaS

Uncover usage hidden from website scanners and request live checks on demand. Prioritize prospects with estimated adoption and annual spend. Discovering companies is free on every plan; you pay only for a detected match.

Get started free