B2B Intent Data Providers for Financial Services Comparison

Key Takeaways

Financial services firms evaluating intent data face a problem that does not exist in other B2B verticals: the gap between account-level signals and individual advisor-level intelligence. A general-purpose provider can tell you that Morgan Stanley is researching thematic ETFs. It cannot tell you which advisor at which branch is doing the research. That distinction determines whether a wholesaler makes a productive call or wastes an afternoon.

We built our intent data practice around the specific needs of financial services distribution teams, where CRD-level precision and FINRA compliance are not optional. This guide compares the major B2B intent data providers serving financial services, breaks down how their data collection methods differ, and identifies which provider categories solve which distribution problems.

What Are the Major B2B Intent Data Provider Categories for Financial Services?

B2B intent data providers for financial services fall into two distinct categories: general-purpose platforms that serve all B2B verticals and financial-services-specific providers built around advisor and investor data. Understanding which category solves your problem is the first decision, and getting it wrong means paying for signals you cannot act on.

As of Q1 2025, the Forrester Wave: Intent Data Providers for B2B evaluated 15 providers across 21 criteria. Bombora, 6sense, Informa TechTarget, and Intentsify were named Leaders. None of these are built for financial services distribution specifically, which is why a second category of providers exists.

General-purpose providers are the right choice for asset management firms running broad marketing campaigns or targeting institutional accounts. Financial-services-specific providers are required when distribution teams need to identify and prioritize individual advisors. Most firms operating at scale need both.

How Do Data Collection Methods Differ Across Providers?

The method a provider uses to collect intent signals determines data quality, regulatory risk, and whether the signals are actionable for financial services compliance requirements. There are four primary collection methods, and each carries different trade-offs that financial firms need to evaluate.

Co-op data (Bombora's primary method) aggregates anonymized content consumption from a cooperative of 200+ publishers and 5,500+ B2B media sites, capturing 17 billion interactions per month. Because publishers consensually share data, co-op signals are consent-based and privacy-compliant. The limitation is coverage: signals only come from participating publisher sites.

Bidstream data (used partially by ZoomInfo and Demandbase) captures signals from programmatic ad exchanges when ads are served. Scale is massive, but regulatory risk is increasing. The UK ICO and Belgian APD have both indicated that bidstream data collection violates GDPR, and U.S. lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate whether it violates federal privacy laws. For FINRA-regulated firms that must demonstrate compliance with data sourcing, bidstream carries meaningful risk.

Proprietary first-party data (TechTarget, G2, VettaFi) captures signals directly from owned media properties. TechTarget's Priority Engine provides access to 32 million opted-in contacts actively researching solutions. VettaFi captures advisor engagement across ETF Database, ETF Trends, and related properties, reaching 140,000+ U.S.-based financial advisors annually. First-party data offers the highest accuracy but is limited to each provider's content ecosystem.

CRD-level matching (Broadridge/AdvisorTarget) uses patented cookie-free technology to match IP addresses to individual financial advisors identified by their permanent FINRA CRD numbers. AdvisorTarget monitors 285,000 producing advisors and tracks 10 million+ monthly visits without cookies, logins, or sign-ups. This is the only method that resolves intent to a specific registered advisor rather than a company.

What Does Intent Data Actually Cost?

Intent data pricing varies by an order of magnitude depending on whether you need general B2B signals or financial-services-specific advisor intelligence. Understanding the pricing structure prevents overspending on capabilities you do not need or underspending on the granularity your distribution team requires.

As of 2025, general-purpose providers range from approximately $10,000 to $80,000 annually. ZoomInfo's Advanced tier (which includes intent data) starts at approximately $24,995 per year. Bombora ranges from $30,000 to $80,000 depending on tracked account volume. G2's Buyer Intent data ranges from $10,000 to $87,000 at list price, though median negotiated discounts exceed 38%.

Financial-services-specific providers do not publish pricing. This reflects the enterprise nature of these contracts and the customization required for each asset manager's fund lineup and distribution model. Expect financial-specific intent data to cost meaningfully more than general B2B platforms, particularly for CRD-level individual advisor tracking.

This pricing comparison applies to standalone intent data subscriptions. Firms that need both intent signals and campaign execution (email, paid media, content) should evaluate integrated platforms that combine data and activation, since buying these separately from different vendors introduces data fragmentation and integration costs.

Why Does CRD-Level Tracking Matter More Than Account-Level Signals?

CRD-level tracking resolves the fundamental problem in financial services distribution: knowing that a firm is interested is not the same as knowing which advisor to call. Account-level intent data tells a wholesaler that "Merrill Lynch is researching income ETFs." CRD-level data tells them that advisor John Smith, CRD #1234567, at the Boston office, has been reading about thematic ETFs three times this week.

This distinction exists because of FINRA's Central Registration Depository system, which assigns a permanent, unique identifier to every registered advisor. Unlike email addresses or job titles, CRD numbers persist when advisors change firms. A wholesaler's relationship data stays intact across job moves, which is a problem that costs ETF issuers significant pipeline disruption every year.

Broadridge's AdvisorTarget, acquired in May 2024, is the largest CRD-level intent data provider. It offers four modules: Advisor IP Match (website visitor identification), Advisor Intent Signals (publication activity scored 1-5), Ticker Intent (tracks advisor searches for specific securities), and Identity Segments (profiles existing clients' research patterns).

Discovery Data (part of ISS Market Intelligence) partnered with AdvisorTarget to launch Advisor Intent Indices in October 2021, providing a 0-200 scoring model that compares overall advisor engagement with individual engagement and tracks month-over-month trends. This data is also available through the Snowflake marketplace for firms with data warehouse infrastructure.

Our Odyssey platform takes CRD-level tracking further by consolidating six engagement channels (email, website, video, webinar, geo-location, CRM) into a single advisor profile with AI-driven 0-100 intent scoring. In pilot deployments, this approach delivered a 37% reduction in list compilation time and a 32% increase in conversion rates when targeting top-decile intent-scored advisors.

How Should Financial Services Firms Evaluate Providers?

Evaluating intent data providers for financial services requires weighing five factors that do not apply in other B2B verticals: regulatory compliance, signal granularity, data persistence, integration complexity, and the distinction between marketing and distribution use cases.

Start with the use case. If the goal is improving paid media targeting or content marketing effectiveness, general-purpose providers (Bombora, 6sense) deliver adequate account-level signals at lower cost. If the goal is enabling wholesalers to prioritize specific advisors, only CRD-level providers (Broadridge/AdvisorTarget, Discovery Data, or platforms like Odyssey) provide actionable intelligence.

Assess compliance risk. Firms regulated by FINRA and the SEC face specific obligations around marketing communications (FINRA Rule 2210), data retention (up to 5 years for all marketing materials), and data sourcing transparency. Bidstream-derived data carries increasing regulatory risk. Cookie-free and consent-based collection methods are better positioned for long-term compliance durability.

Evaluate data fragmentation. As of 2026, no single provider covers the full financial services intent spectrum. An asset manager might need AdvisorTarget for advisor-level intent, Discovery Data for advisor profiles, VettaFi for ETF-specific engagement, and Bombora for broader account signals. Each integration adds cost and complexity. Platforms that consolidate multiple signal types into a single view reduce operational overhead.

Check for the anonymous research window. According to the 6sense 2025 Buyer Experience Report (surveying 4,000+ B2B buyers), 60% of the buying journey happens before a buyer contacts any vendor. The vendor preferred before seller engagement wins 80% of deals. In financial services, where compliance-driven caution extends evaluation cycles, this anonymous window may be even larger, making early intent detection critical for distribution teams.

Conclusion

The intent data provider landscape for financial services splits along a line that does not exist in other B2B verticals: account-level signals versus individual CRD-level advisor intelligence. General-purpose providers deliver broad coverage at established price points. Financial-services-specific providers deliver the individual advisor granularity that distribution teams need to prioritize wholesaler activity. Most asset managers operating at scale need both categories working together.

Our financial services clients use Odyssey's CRD-indexed intent scoring to consolidate six engagement channels into actionable advisor profiles, achieving 32% higher conversion rates through top-decile targeting. Book a demo to see how integrated intent data changes ETF distribution efficiency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is B2B intent data?

B2B intent data captures behavioral signals indicating that a company or individual is actively researching a product or service. These signals include content consumption, search activity, website visits, and engagement patterns. For financial services, intent data identifies which advisors or institutions are researching specific investment products before they contact a vendor.

Can general-purpose intent data providers work for financial services?

Yes, for account-level marketing use cases like paid media targeting and content personalization. General-purpose providers (Bombora, 6sense, ZoomInfo) can identify that a firm is researching ETFs or asset management services. They cannot identify which individual advisor is doing the research, which limits their utility for wholesaler-driven distribution.

How much does intent data cost for financial services?

General-purpose B2B intent data ranges from $10,000 to $80,000 annually depending on the provider and tracked account volume. Financial-services-specific providers (Broadridge/AdvisorTarget, Discovery Data, VettaFi) do not publish pricing and require custom contracts. Expect financial-specific providers to cost more due to CRD-level granularity and smaller addressable market.

What is CRD-level intent tracking?

CRD-level intent tracking identifies individual financial advisors by their permanent FINRA CRD (Central Registration Depository) number rather than by company or email address. This approach survives advisor job changes, provides individual-level rather than account-level signals, and enables wholesalers to prioritize specific advisors showing purchase intent.

Is bidstream intent data safe for FINRA-regulated firms?

Bidstream data faces increasing regulatory scrutiny. The UK ICO and Belgian APD have indicated it violates GDPR, and U.S. lawmakers have asked the FTC to investigate federal privacy law implications. While not explicitly prohibited by FINRA, firms subject to SEC and FINRA oversight should evaluate whether bidstream-sourced data meets their compliance and data governance standards.

Bottom Line

• Account-level vs. CRD-level is the defining choice in financial services intent data: general-purpose providers identify interested companies, while financial-specific providers identify interested individual advisors
• Intent-qualified leads convert at 2-3x the rate of traditional methods, and the vendor preferred before first contact wins 80% of deals, making early intent detection a distribution advantage
• Data collection method determines compliance risk: consent-based co-op and cookie-free CRD matching are positioned for regulatory durability, while bidstream data faces growing enforcement pressure

Continue Learning

• Combining Intent Data and Site Traffic ID for ETF Marketing: how intent signals and visitor identification work together to improve campaign targeting
• Cold Email Open Rate Benchmarks for Financial Services in 2026: full benchmark data showing how intent-driven targeting improves cold email performance

Domain Warming for Financial Email Campaigns: technical infrastructure guide for the email campaigns intent data feeds into