3x cheaper, 2x better: Radish vs Claude Cowork for lead gen
A head-to-head benchmark on a real lead-gen task: finding verified LinkedIn profiles for regional US airline leadership teams—measuring valid links and cost.
In B2B lead gen, performance usually comes down to two things: data quality and cost to acquire it. If you are paying for shallow results—or worse, broken links—your outbound engine stalls before it starts.
So we ran a simple stress test: Radish vs Claude Cowork (“Co-work”) on a real research task—finding the LinkedIn profiles for the leadership teams of regional US airlines.
The outcome was unambiguous on the two metrics that matter most for outbound research:
- 2.15× more valid LinkedIn profiles (43 vs 20)
- 3.08× lower cost ($1.20 vs $3.70)
Methodology: deep planning vs quick starts
The difference showed up before a single lead was found. Lead gen is only as good as the research strategy behind it.
- Claude Cowork took a faster, “start scraping” approach: a few basic questions, then execution.
- Radish spent an extra beat on exploration: it mapped the problem space, listed the airlines it would target, and proposed a verification method for profiles before running.
That small upfront planning step translated into a large gap in output quality.
Results
Both tools took a few minutes to complete the query. But the quality of the output was night and day.
| Metric | Claude Cowork | Radish |
|---|---|---|
| Total leads found | 26 | 43 |
| Valid LinkedIn links | 20 | 43 |
| Data integrity | 23% dead links | 100% functional |
| Data depth | Surface level (CEO/COO heavy) | Full leadership stack |
| Total cost | $3.70 | $1.20 |
Data quality and depth
Claude Cowork identified 26 people, but 6 of the LinkedIn URLs were dead—so only 20 functional profiles were usable. The list also skewed toward the “usual suspects,” mostly the top of the org chart.
Radish returned 43 verified profiles, and it did not stop at the very top. It went deeper into the leadership structure, which is often where outbound targeting gets interesting (and where manual research usually gets expensive).
The cost-efficiency gap
The most striking takeaway was simple:
Radish completed the task for $1.20—over 3× cheaper than Claude Cowork ($3.70).
At small scale, that is a nice-to-have. At scale—hundreds or thousands of enrichment queries—it becomes a budget line item you either control or it controls you.
Verdict
In this benchmark, Radish outperformed Claude Cowork on every meaningful category:
- More usable data: 43 valid profiles vs 20 (2.15× more).
- Higher accuracy: zero broken links; stronger verification.
- Lower cost: $1.20 vs $3.70 (3.08× cheaper).
Lead gen is a game of compounding advantages. A tool that thinks before it acts wins on both quality and cost.
Ready to see the difference? Start building on radish.build.