Skrapp: The Credit Model, the Search Caps, and Where It Fits

Skrapp's free plan allows ten people searches a day. Its Professional plan allows twenty. Its Enterprise plan, at fifty thousand credits a month, allows a hundred and fifty. Those numbers sit in a comparison table below the prices, they are not mentioned in any plan card, and for a lot of teams they matter more than the credit allowance does, because a search cap is a ceiling on how fast you can work rather than on how much you can buy.

This page covers what Skrapp is, how its credit model works, what the published caps actually constrain, and where a tool shaped like this belongs in a data stack.

What Skrapp is

Skrapp is an email finder with a verifier attached, built around LinkedIn. The product surface has four parts: a lead search over its own database, browser extensions that overlay LinkedIn, Sales Navigator and LinkedIn Recruiter, a bulk enrichment path for lists you bring yourself, and an API on the top tier.

The pricing page's feature comparison is unusually explicit about what belongs to which tier, and the shape it describes is a standard one. The finder and the verifier are on every plan including the free one. The things that make it usable at volume, list exports, CRM sync, multi-page LinkedIn enrichment and the Sales Navigator list saver, all sit behind the first paid tier.

The credit model, and the promise attached to it

The headline commitment on the pricing page is "Only pay for deliverable emails." Two supporting terms appear in the plan cards: a Fair Credit Policy, and credits that roll over, both on the paid tiers rather than the free one.

That combination is worth understanding because it changes what a credit means. On a vendor that charges per lookup, your cost is driven by attempts, and a market the vendor covers badly costs you money to discover. On a vendor that charges only for deliverable results, the same bad coverage costs you time instead. Time is usually the cheaper of the two, and it is also the one that does not show up on an invoice, which is why teams underestimate it.

What the credit terms commit to

• ✓Yes: Only pay for deliverable emails, stated as the headline pricing promise
• ✓Yes: Credits roll over, on the paid tiers
• ✓Yes: A Fair Credit Policy, named on the paid tiers
• ✕No: Rollover on the free plan
• ✕No: A published expiry window for rolled-over credits

The last line is the gap. Rollover is stated; how long a rolled credit survives is not published, and that is worth asking before you plan around banking a balance.

The plans

The billing toggle defaults to yearly, at a stated saving of 25 percent, and the page renders the monthly price struck through beside it. So the first price you see is the discounted annual one, which is worth normalising before you compare it to a competitor whose page opens on monthly.

Both paid plans carry a volume slider rather than a single allowance, with Professional running from 2,000 up to 25,000 credits a month and Enterprise from 50,000 to 500,000. The entry point on Professional works out at roughly $0.0145 a credit on yearly billing and $0.0195 monthly, which is at the cheap end of this category and reflects the deliverable-only billing model rather than a discount.

The caps that are not on the plan cards

This is the section most buyers skip and most teams later trip over. Skrapp publishes daily and per-search limits in its feature comparison table, and they scale steeply with tier.

Multiply the two people-search figures together and the shape becomes clear. On Professional, twenty searches a day at up to a hundred results each is a ceiling of two thousand people a day, which happens to match the entry credit allowance for a month. On Free, ten searches at ten results is a hundred.

The credit ceilingMoves with money

• Set by the plan's monthly credit allowance
• Adjustable on a slider at purchase
• Rolls over on paid tiers
• Only consumed by deliverable results

The search ceilingMoves with tier only

• Set by daily search counts and results per search
• Not adjustable independently of the tier
• Resets daily and does not accumulate
• Consumed whether or not anything is found

The practical rule that falls out of this: if your bottleneck is discovering people, the tier matters. If your bottleneck is resolving people you have already identified elsewhere, the credit allowance matters and the search caps are irrelevant. Teams that source from LinkedIn inside Skrapp are in the first case. Teams uploading their own lists for enrichment are in the second, and can often sit on a cheaper tier than a features comparison would suggest.

Reading a slider-priced plan

Both paid tiers are sliders rather than fixed plans, and that shape rewards a little arithmetic before you buy.

The useful move is to work out your unit rate at each stop rather than comparing headline prices. A slider that quadruples the credits for less than four times the money is telling you where the vendor wants you, and the cheapest stop per credit is rarely the first one. Skrapp's own page publishes a per-credit figure alongside each stop, which makes this a two-minute exercise rather than a spreadsheet.

The second thing to check is what else moves with the slider. On Skrapp, user seats change with volume as well as credits, so a small team on a large credit allowance and a large team on a small one are both paying for something they do not need. Pick the stop where seats and credits are both roughly right, then check whether the tier's search caps can actually feed that credit allowance in a month. If twenty searches a day cannot produce enough rows to spend the credits you bought, you have bought the wrong axis.

Where it fits

Skrapp performs two jobs that are worth separating, because they compete with different parts of a stack.

The sourcing job, turning a LinkedIn search or a database filter into structured rows, is genuinely useful and is bounded by the caps above. The resolution job, turning a row into a working address, is one provider's single attempt sitting where a serious outbound stack runs several attempts in order.

A waterfall runs providers in sequence, stops at the first confident result, and only pays the next stage for the rows the previous stage could not resolve. The economics are in our waterfall enrichment guide, and the stack we run is MillionVerifier brute-force first, then Prospeo, then Findymail, with no fourth paid stage. A deliverable-only biller like Skrapp fits that pattern comfortably, because a stage that charges nothing for a miss is cheap to place early.

The verifier deserves one note of its own. Whatever a verification step reports, it cannot confirm a mailbox on an accept-all domain, where the server accepts mail to every address so any address appears valid. Our position is that the catch-all tail gets banked rather than mailed, and the mechanics are in our guide to email verification tools.

If you are sourcing from LinkedIn specifically, the export-tool comparison in our page on Wiza covers the constraints LinkedIn itself imposes on any tool in this space, which no vendor can negotiate away.

Testing it properly

The free plan gives 50 credits and ten searches a day, which is enough for a real test if you spend it on correctness rather than on browsing.

Take contacts where you already hold an independently verified address, spread across the geographies and seniority levels your list actually contains, and compare what Skrapp returns against what you already had. Count resolution, matching and accept-all results separately. Then score on cost per correct address rather than hit rate, because an address that is valid and belongs to somebody else costs you a prospect rather than a credit, and no deliverability check will ever catch it. The full protocol is in our guide to email finder tools.

The short version

Skrapp is a LinkedIn-oriented email finder with a verifier, priced from $29 a month on yearly billing for 2,000 credits and $262 for 50,000, with the yearly rate shown by default at a stated 25 percent saving. Its headline term is that you only pay for deliverable emails, with credit rollover and a fair credit policy on paid tiers, though no expiry window for rolled credits is published. The constraint that catches teams out is not the credits but the daily search caps: ten searches a day on Free, twenty on Professional and a hundred and fifty on Enterprise, with results per search capped separately. Buying more credits does not raise those. Placed early in a provider sequence, a vendor that charges nothing for a miss is a cheap first attempt.

If you would rather see the whole motion running on your own ICP before you commit to a data vendor, start a free campaign and we will build the list, the copy and the sending infrastructure around it.

Pricing and features verified as of August 2026. Verify current terms with the vendor before relying on them.