Technographic data accuracy has a benchmark problem. Most providers clear a hit rate somewhere between 50 and 60 percent, and the category has quietly agreed to treat that as the going rate rather than a shortfall. Four or five accounts out of every ten are wrong, and that error rate gets priced in instead of fixed, largely because almost nobody outside the vendor is checking the math.

One buyer checked it. A consulting firm they hired ran a blind sample of roughly 100 accounts and came back with 87 to 88 percent, plus a false-positive rate low enough that the evaluator called it out separately. What makes the figure worth attention is its source: someone paid to find the gaps, not a vendor presenting its own slide.

The report below argues that closing this gap is procedural, not a matter of shopping for a bigger accuracy claim. Chasing the claim is what set the bar at 50 percent in the first place. Inside: what the independent benchmark actually measured, why false positives cost more than any accuracy figure captures, and five questions to put to a provider before budget moves.