Both work the developer-signal angle for go-to-market. The difference is the delivery: reo.dev is a gated platform; DataForGTM is a self-serve, agent-callable API.
| DataForGTM | reo.dev | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub developer intent signals | Yes (by repo / org / company) | Yes (broad: docs, package managers, communities) |
| GitHub username → LinkedIn as an API | Yes — the core product | De-anon inside the platform only |
| Agent-discoverable (MCP / OpenAPI) | Yes | A separate connector, gated |
| Self-serve, no demo, no seat | Yes | Demo-gated, per-seat |
| Pricing | Pay-per-resolve (~$0.30), no subscription | Platform subscription |
| Full inbound platform (website de-anon, dashboards, routing) | No — API primitives only | Yes |
If you want a full inbound platform — website visitor de-anonymization, dashboards, alerting, and CRM routing managed for you — reo.dev is built for that.
If you want the underlying data as composable tools an AI agent can call — resolve a handle, pull intent for a repo, score a company against your ICP — with self-serve, pay-per-use pricing and no platform to adopt, DataForGTM is built for that. Start a trial →