01 / DeclarationRead this before anything else
I sell pay-per-lead, so every supplier here is a competitor
The Lead Gen Company offers a pay-per-lead option alongside managed campaigns. That makes this the second guide on this site, after the PPC agencies guide, where I am comparing direct competitors and you should adjust for it.
Same treatment as that page. The Lead Gen Company is excluded from the ranked positions and appears at the end as a declared entry. It scores 8.3 against my own criteria, which reflects that I chose criteria rewarding exclusivity, consent evidence and published pricing, all things my own model does. The criteria are the ones I think matter, and a buyer who cares most about volume and sector breadth would weight them differently and get a different order.
Section 07 is the part of this page worth reading regardless of who wrote it. It is about a legal exposure that sits with you rather than your supplier, it is sourced entirely to ICO enforcement, and almost nobody selling leads will raise it with you.
02 / The short answerWho to buy from, and what to check
Lead Pronto scores highest at 7.8/10, on published per-lead pricing, exclusive options and no retainer, which is a rare combination in a market that mostly quotes on a call. MVF Global (7.4) and The Lead Generation Company (7.4) follow, the first on scale and multi-vertical coverage, the second on B2B qualification depth. At the other end, Bark (5.3) and Rated People (5.2) score lowest because heavy lead sharing undermines every other advantage they have.
The thing to check before price, volume or anything else: if you are buying consumer leads and the consent behind them did not name your company specifically, that consent is not valid for your processing. The ICO has fined buyers, not just sellers, repeatedly on exactly this point, and "we relied on our supplier's assurance" has failed as a defence every time it has been tried.
Five things to settle before you buy
- Consent must name you. ICO guidance is explicit: if you buy in consented data, that consent is only valid for your processing if you were specifically identified. "Selected partners" and long partner lists do not qualify.
- A £30 shared lead costs more per customer than a £90 exclusive one. Once you divide by the realistic win rate, exclusive works out at roughly £360 per customer and a lead shared with five at £600. The arithmetic is in section 08.
- The rejection window is the commercial term that matters most. Moving from 48 hours to five working days on 100 leads at a 20% invalid rate recovers roughly £315 more at £45 a lead. Everything else is negotiating around the edges.
- Cost per lead is not cost per customer. At a £45 lead, poor contact and qualification rates produce customers at £503 each; good ones produce them at £252. The supplier controls the first number and you control the second.
- Asking for more volume usually lowers quality. There is no reservoir of unserved demand. Volume increases come from widening geography, loosening criteria or resold data, and a supplier who agrees to double your volume without renegotiating price is telling you which.
03 / MethodSeven criteria, weighted for the buyer's risk
Consent evidence carries 25%. In every other guide on this site the top-weighted criterion is about performance. Here it is about liability, because pay-per-lead is the one purchase where a supplier's shortcut becomes your enforcement action.
| Criterion | Weight | What earns a high score |
|---|---|---|
| Consent & compliance evidence | 25% | Per-lead consent records, source URL and timestamp, and wording that names the buyer |
| Lead exclusivity | 20% | Sold once, to you, and not resold as aged data later |
| Rejection & credit terms | 15% | A stated window of several days, written valid reasons and no undisclosed cap |
| Pricing transparency | 10% | A published per-lead figure rather than a quote after a call |
| Commitment risk | 10% | No minimum spend, no lock-in, money stops when you stop |
| Qualification depth | 10% | Criteria applied before delivery, not asserted afterwards |
| Sector coverage | 10% | Breadth across verticals and UK geography |
On scores and prices
Consent scores reflect published policy, market reputation and business model rather than an audit of any supplier's consent records, which no outsider can perform. Treat them as a starting point for the questions in section 10. Prices are published figures where available and market ranges where not, labelled accordingly. Ties are broken by consent evidence.
04 / At a glanceThe full comparison
| # | Supplier | Score | Shared? | Indicative UK price | Sector |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lead ProntoLiverpool | 7.8 | Exclusive option | From £150/lead B2B solarPublished; residential typically £20 to £60 | Home improvement, energy, finance |
| 2 | MVF GlobalLondon | 7.4 | Exclusive typical | Quote based, est. £30 to £300/lead | Multi-vertical, B2B and B2C |
| 3 | The Lead Generation CompanyGlasgow & London | 7.4 | Exclusive | Est. £150 to £600/appointment | B2B, senior decision-makers |
| 4 | FLSCSwindon | 7.0 | Exclusive | £20 to £200/appointmentPublished range | Financial services, B2B and B2C |
| 5 | Leads2TradeBolton | 6.9 | Exclusive option | Est. £25 to £90/lead | Home improvement trades |
| 6 | UnbiasedLondon | 6.8 | Limited sharing | Est. £30 to £150/lead | Financial advice and mortgages |
| 7 | MyBuilderPlatform | 6.6 | 3 to 6 quote | From £7, typically £5 to £35Published | Trades |
| 8 | QuotatisPlatform | 5.7 | Typically 3 to 4 | Est. £15 to £60/lead | Home improvement |
| 9 | BarkPlatform | 5.3 | ~5 pros | Credits £1.80, leads ~£7 to £40Published | 1,000+ categories |
| 10 | Rated PeoplePlatform | 5.2 | 3 to 5 quote | ~£20 to £30/mo + ~£15/lead | Trades |
| - | The Lead Gen CompanyOursDeclared, unranked | 8.3 | Exclusive | Quote per verticalTelephone-qualified | Narrow, see section 01 |
05 / The tenReviewed one by one
Same seven bars throughout. Where scores tie, the higher consent evidence score ranks first. The Lead Gen Company appears at the end, declared and unranked.
Lead Pronto
Best all-round, and the only one publishing per-lead prices
What it is. A UK pay-per-lead agency covering solar, insulation, windows and doors, boilers, heat pumps, roofing, driveways, mortgages and legal. It generates and qualifies the enquiry itself rather than reselling compiled data, and offers booked appointments as well as raw leads.
Why it tops the ranking. Transparency scores 9 and commitment risk 9. It publishes per-lead and per-appointment prices, which almost nobody in this market does, and charges no retainer, so cost tracks delivery. Generating its own leads rather than buying them also shortens the consent chain, which is the single biggest risk in this category.
Where it is weaker. Sector coverage scores 6: it works in the verticals it works in, and if yours is not on the list this is not a supplier you can use. Qualification depth is good rather than exceptional on raw leads, and stronger on the appointment product.
Strengths
- Publishes per-lead and per-appointment prices openly
- No retainer, so cost tracks what you receive
- Exclusive option removes the race against four competitors
- Generates its own leads, shortening the consent chain
Considerations
- Limited to the verticals it covers
- Qualification is lighter on raw leads than on appointments
- You do not own the acquisition channel
- Audit the consent wording as you would with any supplier
MVF Global
Best scale and vertical breadth
What it is. One of the largest lead generation businesses in the UK, generating enquiries across many verticals in both B2B and consumer markets at very substantial volume, with its own media buying rather than resold data.
Why qualification and coverage both score 8. Scale funds infrastructure: qualification teams, tracking, and enough vertical breadth that most buyers will find their category. For a business needing hundreds of leads a month rather than dozens, few UK suppliers can match the throughput.
Where it is weaker. Transparency scores 4. Pricing is quote-based and varies enormously by vertical and quality tier, so comparison requires a conversation. Volume expectations also mean this is not the right supplier for a business testing with fifty leads.
Strengths
- Genuine scale across many verticals
- Generates rather than resells, with its own media buying
- Strong qualification infrastructure
- Established and long-standing UK operator
Considerations
- No published pricing
- Built for volume buyers rather than small tests
- Quality tiers vary, so define what you are buying
- Commercial terms favour larger commitments
The Lead Generation Company
Best for B2B leads and appointments
What it is. A UK telemarketing and appointment-setting agency selling booked meetings and qualified B2B leads, generated by experienced UK callers rather than sourced from data brokers.
Why exclusivity scores 9, the highest here. Phone-generated B2B appointments are inherently exclusive: a caller has had a conversation with a named person about your specific proposition, and there is no mechanism by which that becomes a shared lead. That is a structural advantage over any marketplace model.
Where it is weaker. Commitment risk scores 6 and transparency 5. This is a campaign engagement rather than a per-lead purchase you can stop at any time, and pricing requires a conversation. B2B only, so no use to a consumer-facing business.
Strengths
- Structurally exclusive, with no resale mechanism
- Strong qualification before handover
- Experienced UK callers into senior roles
- Leads generated rather than bought
Considerations
- Campaign commitment rather than pay-as-you-go
- No published pricing
- B2B only
- Higher unit cost than consumer lead sources
FLSC
Most transparent in financial services
What it is. A Swindon firm generating appointments and leads in financial services alongside general B2B and B2C work, with a UK-based calling team.
Why transparency scores 8. It publishes a real pay-per-appointment range of roughly £20 to £200 depending on industry and complexity. Wide, but a real number you can take into a negotiation, which puts it ahead of most of this market.
The sector caveat. Financial services lead generation attracts the closest regulatory attention of any vertical, from both the ICO and the FCA. The compliance questions in section 07 are not optional diligence here, they are the diligence, and consent evidence scoring 7 rather than 9 reflects that the burden sits heavily on the buyer to verify.
Strengths
- Publishes a real price range without a sales call
- Regulated-sector experience
- UK-based calling team
- Exclusive appointments rather than shared enquiries
Considerations
- Published range is wide, so quotes still vary
- Financial services carries the heaviest compliance burden
- Narrower sector coverage
- Reporting is lighter than the larger operators
Leads2Trade
Best for home improvement trades
What it is. A long-established supplier of home improvement leads to UK trades, covering windows, doors, conservatories, solar and related categories, with both shared and exclusive options.
Who it works for. Installers and trade businesses in the categories it covers who want a supplier that understands the vertical rather than a general marketplace. Exclusivity scores 8 because the exclusive product is genuinely exclusive rather than lightly shared.
Where it is weaker. Sector coverage scores 5 by design, and transparency 6. Home improvement is also the vertical where consumer lead generation compliance has attracted the most ICO attention historically, so verify consent records rather than assuming.
Strengths
- Deep specialism in home improvement verticals
- Genuine exclusive option available
- Long-established in a market with high churn
- Understands installer economics
Considerations
- Narrow sector coverage
- No fully published pricing
- Home improvement carries elevated compliance scrutiny
- Shared option dilutes the advantage significantly
Unbiased
Best for financial advice and mortgage enquiries
What it is. A consumer-facing directory matching people seeking financial advice, mortgages and related services with regulated firms, monetised through a mix of subscription and per-enquiry charges.
Why consent evidence scores 8. The consumer arrives at the platform actively looking for an adviser and selects who to contact, which produces a far cleaner consent position than a comparison site distributing details to a list of partners. The user's intent and the naming of the recipient happen in the same moment.
Where it is weaker. Sector coverage scores 4, the lowest here, because it does one thing. Rejection terms score 6, and the subscription element means some cost is fixed regardless of enquiry flow.
Strengths
- Clean consent position from active user selection
- High-intent enquiries from people actively seeking advice
- Established consumer brand in its category
- Regulated-sector focus with appropriate controls
Considerations
- Single sector, so no use outside financial advice
- Subscription element means fixed cost regardless of volume
- Rejection terms less generous than the best here
- Competition within the platform can be high
MyBuilder
Best platform economics, weakest exclusivity
What it is. A trades platform where homeowners post jobs, tradespeople express interest for free, and you pay only when the customer actively shortlists you and releases their details.
Why rejection and commitment both score highly. Paying only on shortlist is the fairest billing trigger in this guide: the customer has demonstrated intent before money moves. Commitment risk scores 9 because there is no monthly fee at all, so a quiet month costs nothing.
Why exclusivity scores 4. Three to six trades typically quote the same job, which is the structural weakness of every marketplace and the reason it sits seventh despite strong terms elsewhere. Use the arithmetic in section 08 before deciding the low headline price is cheap.
Strengths
- Pay only when a customer shortlists you
- No monthly fee, so quiet months cost nothing
- Published pricing and low entry cost
- Customers post detail, so enquiries are better qualified than average
Considerations
- Three to six trades quote the same job
- Fees non-refundable even when you lose
- Reviews stay on the platform if you leave
- Volume thins outside major cities
Quotatis
Volume home improvement, heavily shared
What it is. A home improvement lead marketplace connecting consumers requesting quotes with installers across windows, doors, boilers, solar and related categories.
Who it works for. Installers wanting volume at a low unit price who have the capacity to quote quickly and often. Speed matters more here than in any exclusive arrangement, because you are typically one of three or four.
Why it ranks eighth. No criterion is strong. Consent evidence scores 6, exclusivity 5 and transparency 5, which in a category where the top suppliers offer exclusive leads with published prices leaves it competing mainly on unit cost. That is a legitimate position and it is the one the arithmetic in section 08 is least kind to.
Strengths
- Low unit price and reasonable volume
- Established in home improvement verticals
- No large upfront commitment
- Useful for filling capacity gaps
Considerations
- Leads typically shared with three or four installers
- Consent chain longer than with own-generated leads
- No published pricing
- Quality varies noticeably by category and region
Bark
Widest coverage, weakest lead economics
What it is. A marketplace covering well over a thousand service categories, where customers submit a request and professionals buy credits to unlock the contact details.
Why sector coverage scores 9 and everything else does not. Nothing else in this guide comes close on breadth, and for niche services it is often the only option. But exclusivity scores 3, rejection terms 4 and qualification 4. Each lead goes to around five professionals, a customer failing to answer does not make a lead invalid under its own policy, and credits bought since November 2025 expire after three months.
Who should still use it. Businesses in categories nobody else serves, testing demand in a new service line, or with the capacity to respond within minutes every time. Outside those cases, the arithmetic in section 08 is unflattering.
Strengths
- Widest category coverage of any UK platform
- No monthly commitment, buy only what you use
- Fastest route to a first enquiry, often same day
- Useful for testing demand in a new service area
Considerations
- Around five professionals receive the same enquiry
- Non-response does not qualify as an invalid lead
- Credits expire after three months and are not refunded
- Weakest qualification of any supplier here
Rated People
Hybrid pricing with shared leads
What it is. A trades platform combining a monthly subscription of roughly £20 to £30 with per-lead fees averaging about £15, with higher tiers bundling lead credits into the monthly cost.
Why it ranks last. The hybrid structure is the worst shape available to a lead buyer: you carry a fixed cost and a variable one at the same time, so a quiet month costs money and produces nothing while a busy month adds fees on top. Exclusivity scores 3 because enquiries go to three to five trades.
Where it still works. Reactive trades such as plumbing and electrical, where speed of response is decisive and jobs are frequent enough that the subscription is always earning. Reports suggest it performs less well for general building work.
Strengths
- Low entry subscription compared with Checkatrade
- Established brand with reasonable homeowner recognition
- Rolling terms in most cases
- Works reasonably for reactive trades
Considerations
- Fixed and variable costs stack, the worst shape in a quiet month
- Enquiries shared with three to five trades
- Full cost only clear after a sales conversation
- Weaker fit for general building work
The Lead Gen Company
Exclusive, telephone-qualified leads from campaigns I run
This is my company and it competes with every supplier above. The score is what my own criteria produce. Read section 01 before giving it weight.
What it is. Leads generated through paid search campaigns I run and build, telephone-qualified before delivery, sold exclusively to one buyer and never resold as aged data.
Why the score is high, and why to discount it. Consent, exclusivity and commitment risk all score 9 because they are structural facts about generating your own leads rather than buying compiled data: the consent names the buyer at the point of capture, there is no second sale, and there is no minimum. But I weighted those criteria at 55% combined and I did so knowing what my own model does well. A buyer who needs volume across many sectors would weight coverage far higher and rank this near the bottom.
Where it is genuinely weak. Sector coverage scores 5, the joint lowest on this page. I work in a small number of verticals and cannot serve most of the categories Bark covers. Volume is finite because campaigns are built individually, so a business needing several hundred leads a month should be talking to MVF Global rather than to me, and I would say so.
Strengths
- Consent captured naming the buyer, with records per lead
- Exclusive, and never resold as aged data
- Telephone-qualified before delivery
- No minimum commitment
Considerations
- Joint-lowest sector coverage on this page
- Finite volume, so unsuitable for high-volume buyers
- Only works where search demand already exists
- I wrote the criteria that put it top, which is the bias to discount for
Not sure whether to buy leads or generate them?
Tell me your average job value and what you can spend. You get the arithmetic back, including when a supplier above is the right answer and I am not.
06 / MoneyWhat UK leads actually cost
| Type | Typical UK price | Shared with | Where it works |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer trade lead | £5 to £60 | 3 to 5 others | High-frequency trades with instant follow-up |
| Consumer exclusive lead | £40 to £150 | Nobody | Higher-value installs and finance |
| Aged or resold data | £2 to £15 | Everyone, repeatedly | Rarely, and never as a primary source |
| B2B qualified lead | £30 to £150 | Usually exclusive | Considered purchases with a sales process |
| B2B booked appointment | £150 to £600 | Exclusive | High deal values where meetings are the bottleneck |
07 / New analysisThe named-consent test
This is the section that should change what you ask a supplier, and it is the one almost nobody selling leads will raise with you.
ICO guidance on valid consent is unambiguous: you must identify yourself and name any third party controllers relying on the consent, and if you buy in consented data, that consent is only valid for your processing if you were specifically identified. Generic wording fails. "Selected third parties", "similar organisations", "carefully chosen partners" and even long lists of named categories have all been found insufficient.
The enforcement record is consistent, and it lands on buyers as often as sellers.
| Case | What happened | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| ZMLUK, January 2026 | 67.7m emails using data from a site listing 361 "partner" companies with no way to choose between them | Consent invalid; £225,000 in fines across the case |
| Digitonomy | Credit broker relied on wording supplied by its affiliate data partners | £120,000; supplier's wording did not demonstrate consent to hear from them |
| Media Tactics | Claims lead generation | £270,000 |
| AFK Letters | 92,277 calls on third-party survey data; could not evidence consent | £90,000 |
| Hamilton Digital | Argued a third party had sent the messages on its behalf | £45,000; the sender remains responsible |
| Saga companies | Paid affiliates to send on their behalf, relying on indirect consent | £150,000 and £75,000 |
Two principles run through all of them. The sender is responsible even when acting on someone else's behalf. And accepting a supplier's assurance is not due diligence; the ICO expects you to have seen the capture journey and the wording.
The consent ladder, worst to best
- Invalid. "We may share your details with selected third parties." No named recipient, no choice.
- Invalid. A list of 300 partner companies with a single tick box and no mechanism to choose.
- Risky. A named category such as "solar installers in your area". Better, and the ICO's position on categories has moved about; do not rely on it alone.
- Defensible. Your company named in the consent wording, with a timestamp, source URL and a copy of the form as the user saw it.
- Strongest. The above, plus the consumer actively choosing you from a list rather than being allocated.
Ask for a screenshot of the capture page as the consumer saw it, for one real lead you have bought. A supplier who cannot produce that within a day either does not have it or does not have access to it, and both answers matter. Note the PECR maximum is now £17.5m or 4% of global turnover, and directors can be fined personally.
This is a summary of published ICO guidance and enforcement, not legal advice. Take advice on your own processing before buying consumer data at volume.
08 / New analysisWhy cheap leads cost more
The unit price of a lead tells you almost nothing, because the thing you are buying is a probability of winning a customer, and sharing divides it.
| Lead type | Price | Realistic close rate | Cost per acquired customer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusive, fresh | £90 | 25% | £360 |
| Shared with three | £45 | 8.3% | £542 |
| Shared with five | £30 | 5% | £600 |
| Aged or resold | £12 | 3% | £400 |
The £30 lead produces customers at nearly twice the cost of the £90 one. That is not an argument that exclusive is always right: if your close rate on shared leads is genuinely better than one in five because you answer faster than anyone else, the maths shifts back. It is an argument that you cannot compare two quotes on unit price without dividing by the win rate each implies.
The other ladder: cost per lead is not cost per customer
Take a £45 lead. At a 65% contact rate, 55% qualifying and a 25% close, you acquire a customer for £503. Improve those to 85%, 70% and 30%, which is an operations problem rather than a supplier problem, and the same £45 lead produces customers at £252. Your follow-up discipline is worth more than any price negotiation you will have, and it is entirely within your control.
09 / New analysisThe rejection mechanism is the whole contract
Pay-per-lead only transfers risk to the supplier if you can reject what is not what you bought. The rejection terms are therefore the commercial heart of the arrangement, and they are usually the least discussed part of it.
Five terms to fix in writing before the first lead arrives:
| Term | Weak version | What to insist on |
|---|---|---|
| Rejection window | 24 to 48 hours | Five working days from delivery |
| Valid reasons | Undefined, decided case by case | A written list: wrong number, out of area, duplicate, outside criteria, denies enquiring |
| Rejection cap | Undisclosed, often 10% to 15% | No cap, or a cap disclosed before you sign |
| Non-contact | Not a valid reason | Valid after a stated number of attempts across two days |
| Resale | Silent | Written confirmation the lead is not resold later as aged data |
The last one catches people out. A lead sold to you as exclusive today can lawfully be sold to someone else in ninety days as aged data unless the contract says otherwise, which means your exclusive lead becomes your competitor's cheap lead shortly after you have warmed it up.
10 / Ask theseTen questions before you buy
- Show me the consent wording as the consumer saw it, for a real lead. A screenshot, not a description.
- Is my company named in that consent? If not, on what lawful basis am I contacting this person.
- Do you generate these leads or buy them? Every intermediary lengthens the chain you are liable for.
- How many businesses receive each lead? And is that contractual or a current practice.
- Will this lead be resold later as aged data? Get the answer in writing.
- What is the rejection window and the list of valid reasons? Five days, written list.
- Is there a cap on rejections? Ask before signing, because caps are rarely volunteered.
- What qualification happens before delivery? Applied beforehand or asserted afterwards.
- Can you provide source URL and timestamp per lead? The minimum evidence trail.
- What happens to quality if I double my volume? An honest supplier will say it falls.
11 / QuestionsWhat buyers ask before signing
How much do leads cost in the UK?
Consumer trade leads shared with three to five businesses run £5 to £60. Exclusive consumer leads run £40 to £150. Aged or resold data runs £2 to £15. B2B qualified leads run £30 to £150, and booked B2B appointments £150 to £600. The more useful figure is cost per acquired customer: an exclusive lead at £90 with a 25% close rate produces customers at £360, while a £30 lead shared with five produces them at around £600.
Which is the best pay-per-lead company in the UK?
On the seven criteria used here, Lead Pronto scores highest at 7.8 out of 10 for published per-lead pricing, exclusive options and no retainer. MVF Global and The Lead Generation Company both score 7.4, the first on scale and vertical breadth, the second on B2B qualification. Bark and Rated People score lowest at 5.3 and 5.2 because heavy lead sharing undermines their other strengths. This page is written by someone who also sells leads and says so in section 01.
Is buying consumer leads legal in the UK?
Yes, if the consent behind them is valid for your processing. ICO guidance states that where you rely on consent collected by a third party, your organisation must be specifically named at the time consent was collected. Generic wording such as "selected partners" is not sufficient, and nor are long unfiltered partner lists. The ICO has fined buyers who relied on supplier assurances, so the diligence obligation is yours regardless of what your contract says.
What happens if the consent behind my leads is invalid?
You can be fined, not just your supplier. The ICO has repeatedly penalised the organisation doing the marketing rather than the data source, including cases where the buyer argued a third party sent the messages on its behalf. Maximum PECR penalties are now £17.5m or 4% of global annual turnover following changes in force from February 2026, and directors can be fined personally. Ask for the capture-page screenshot before you buy, not after a complaint.
Are exclusive leads worth the extra cost?
Usually, on the arithmetic. An exclusive lead at £90 with a 25% close rate costs £360 per customer. The same job as a lead shared with five at £30 closes nearer 5%, which is £600 per customer. The exception is a business that answers faster than anyone else, because in shared markets speed largely determines who wins, and a genuinely superior response time can push your share of a contested lead well above one in five.
What should the lead rejection window be?
Five working days from delivery, with a written list of valid reasons covering wrong number, out of area, duplicate, outside agreed criteria and the consumer denying they enquired. On 100 leads at a 20% invalid rate, moving from a 48-hour window to five days recovers roughly £315 more at £45 a lead. Also ask whether there is a cap on the proportion you can reject, because caps of 10% to 15% are common and rarely volunteered.
Can a lead sold to me as exclusive be resold later?
Yes, unless your contract prevents it. Exclusivity commonly means the lead is sold once at the point of sale, not that it will never be sold again. Suppliers routinely resell older enquiries as aged data at a fraction of the price, which means the lead you paid a premium for and warmed up can reach a competitor cheaply a few months later. Get written confirmation that leads supplied to you are never resold in any form.
Why does lead quality drop when I ask for more volume?
Because there is no reservoir of unserved demand waiting. Extra volume comes from widening the geography, loosening the qualification criteria, buying from additional sources, or including older data. All four reduce average quality. A supplier who agrees to double your volume at the same price and quality is telling you one of those levers is being pulled, so ask which, and consider paying more per lead rather than accepting more of them.
Should I buy leads or generate my own?
Buy while you are testing whether a market works, because the money stops when you stop and the supplier carries delivery risk. Generate your own once the volume justifies it, because you keep the channel, the conversion history and a clean consent position where the consumer named you directly. Many businesses run both, using bought leads to fill capacity and owned campaigns to build a cost base that improves over time rather than staying flat.
12 / TransparencyMethod, limitations and sources
How this guide was built
Suppliers were selected to cover the main shapes of the UK pay-per-lead market: own-generation agencies, large multi-vertical generators, sector specialists and consumer marketplaces. Each was scored against the seven weighted criteria in section 03, using published pricing where available and market benchmarks where not. Ties are broken by consent evidence.
The conflict, restated. The Lead Gen Company sells pay-per-lead and competes with every supplier here. That is declared in section 01, in the comparison table and on the The Lead Gen Company entry. The criteria reward consent evidence, exclusivity and published pricing, which are things my own model does, and I have said so rather than presenting the framework as neutral.
Other limitations. Consent scores reflect published policy, business model and market reputation, not an audit of any supplier's consent records, which no outsider can perform. They are a starting point for the questions in section 10, not a substitute for asking them. The close rates in section 08 are illustrative assumptions chosen to show the mechanism; substitute your own. Prices for suppliers that do not publish are estimates from market benchmarks.
This is not legal advice. Section 07 summarises published ICO guidance and enforcement decisions. Your obligations depend on your own processing, and you should take advice before buying consumer data at volume.
Corrections. If you work at one of these companies and a figure is wrong, send the correct number and the page it is published on, and this guide will be updated with the change noted.
Sources
- ICO, what is valid consent, and guidance on naming third party controllers
- ICO, organisations using marketing services of data brokers
- ICO enforcement, ZMLUK Limited and associated fines, January 2026
- ICO enforcement, Digitonomy Ltd, Media Tactics Ltd, The Data Supply Company Ltd
- ICO enforcement, AFK Letters Co Ltd and Hamilton Digital Solutions
- ICO enforcement, Saga Services Ltd and Saga Personal Finance
- Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, PECR penalty provisions in force February 2026
- ICO direct marketing guidance on indirect consent
- Lead Pronto and FLSC published pricing
- Bark, MyBuilder and Rated People published fee structures
- UK lead price benchmarks by vertical, 2026
Want a second opinion on a lead supply quote?
Send the price, the sharing arrangement and the rejection terms. You get the arithmetic back, including when a supplier above beats what I could offer you.
Related reading: the best lead generation companies in the UK covers the whole market, lead generation companies for small business covers the platform options in more depth, the best B2B data providers covers buying data rather than enquiries, and the best PPC agencies covers generating your own. If you want to talk about PPC lead generation for your business, the form at the top of this page is the fastest route.