CxB34
Claude alone6
Influencers.club2
Exa1
CxB / Benchmarks
We gave four tools the same 8 briefs from real brands, like “people paying off debt and sharing their progress,” “fitness and weight loss creators with under 50K followers” or “parents of kids with food allergies,” and counted the creators who fit, get views and are actively posting.
Top 5 per tool, all 8 briefs · higher is better
Picks that match the brief, and how many still post and get watched
Spend plus the buyer's time to vet · lower is better
Qualified creators in each tool's top 5.
In this benchmark, CxB: 34 qualified creators across 8 briefs, against 6 for Claude working alone, 2 for Influencers.club and 1 for Exa. CxB came out ahead of the creator databases on 8 of 8 briefs and of the agent on 8.
Most of their picks are the right kind of person but no longer post or get watched: 19 of Influencers.club's picks and 17 of Exa's matched the brief, but only 2 and 1 still post and get views.
Start from who they are, not follower counts. Look for creators whose own bio or posts say it, check they posted in the last 30 days and that recent views hold up against their followers, then read the profile. CxB does this for you: tell it who your customer is and it sends the creators who fit.
Each tool's top 5 per brief were pooled, shuffled and graded by one judge, Jev (TypeSafe, jev-1.14.0), grading every creator the same way without knowing which tool found them. Every creator got the same activity and views check.
Yes, under CC BY 4.0. Cite: Creators x Brands (2026). CxB UGC creator sourcing benchmark. https://creatorsxbrands.com/benchmarks.json.
Data: benchmarks.json benchmarks.md
Cite: Creators x Brands (2026). CxB UGC creator sourcing benchmark. https://creatorsxbrands.com/benchmarks.json · CC BY 4.0