Datorama vs Roxhill

Datorama

Nothing recorded yet. See the Datorama review.

Roxhill

• The database is UK-centric by reviewers’ own account, with weak US, Australian and broader Asian journalist coverage, so any multi-market programme needs a second vendor and the single-vendor cost case disappears.
• Contact records go stale: reviewers report old email addresses and phone numbers, distribution bounces, and there is no self-serve verification step before you send.
• At roughly 200,000 to 300,000 journalists it is far smaller than the million-plus figures Cision and Prowly claim, with repeated complaints about thin trade, academic and journal coverage.
• Selling is annual only with no monthly plan and a trial functionally restricted to around two weeks, so you cannot genuinely pilot before a twelve-month commitment, which is a poor fit for project or retainer agency work.
• Licence bands are 1, 3 and 5 seats, and extra logins, workspaces, smart folders, historical search, share of voice and the spokespeople platform are all chargeable add-ons, so a team of eight to fifteen pays well above any headline band.
• Search behaviour is described as counter-intuitive and sometimes returns implausibly few results, which means a null result cannot be trusted and lists need manual cross-checking.
• Monitoring accuracy takes time to settle after switching, so coverage is missed in the first weeks after a cutover, which is a real gap risk if you time the migration badly.