Sweep
Acme Corp
Overview
Dashboard
Observe
Field ClustersDuplicatesPropertiesSegments
Act
Approval QueueSemantic Layer
System
Audit LogSettingsDesign System

Field Clusters

20 clusters · 12 pending review · 0 dismissed

Leadfeeder Tier 1

94%proposed

3 fields look equivalent — labels share key terms ("Leadfeeder Tier 1" ↔ "Leadfeeder Tier 2")

  • ›Labels share key terms ("Leadfeeder Tier 1" ↔ "Leadfeeder Tier 2")
  • ›Labels share key terms ("Leadfeeder Tier 1" ↔ "Leadfeeder Tier 3")
  • ›Labels share key terms ("Leadfeeder Tier 2" ↔ "Leadfeeder Tier 3")
  • ›100% of distinct values appear in both fields
MEMBER FIELDS · 3— click a field to choose the winner
Leadfeeder Tier 1leadfeeder_tier_1
Winnerstring
2%
companyinformation
Leadfeeder Tier 2leadfeeder_tier_2
string
2%
companyinformation
Leadfeeder Tier 3leadfeeder_tier_3
string
2%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 3% vs best individual: 2%

Lifecycle Stage

90%executed

2 fields look equivalent — values agree on 100% of 137 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 100% of 137 co-filled records
  • ›Labels are 83% similar ("Lifecycle Stage V2" ↔ "Lifecycle Stage")
  • ›60% of distinct values appear in both fields
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
Lifecycle Stage V2lifecycle_stage_v2
Winnerenumeration
100%
companyinformation
Lifecycle Stagelifecyclestage
HubSpot-defined · can't be removedenumeration
100%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 100%

planhat_id

90%executed

2 fields look equivalent — labels share key terms ("ID_in_planhat" ↔ "planhat_id")

  • ›Labels share key terms ("ID_in_planhat" ↔ "planhat_id")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
ID_in_planhatid_in_planhat
Winnerstring
1%
companyinformation
planhat_idplanhat_id
string
0%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 2% vs best individual: 1%

Vainu: Turn on auto update

90%executed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 93% similar ("Vainu: Turn off auto update" ↔ "Vainu: Turn on auto update")

  • ›Labels are 93% similar ("Vainu: Turn off auto update" ↔ "Vainu: Turn on auto update")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
Vainu: Turn off auto updatevainu__turn_off_auto_update
Winnerstring
78%
vainu_company_data
Vainu: Turn on auto updatevainu__turn_on_auto_update
string
2%
vainu_company_data
Logical fill rate: 90% vs best individual: 78%

Technologies (Vainu)

84%executed

2 fields look equivalent — values agree on 100% of 61 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 100% of 61 co-filled records
  • ›Labels share key terms ("Technologies (Vainu)" ↔ "Vainu Technologies (text)")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
Technologies (Vainu)technologies__vainu_
Winnerenumeration
74%
vainu_company_data
Vainu Technologies (text)vainu_technologies_text
string
45%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 85% vs best individual: 74%

Owner assigned date

83%executed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 83% similar ("BDR Owner assigned date" ↔ "Owner assigned date")

  • ›Labels are 83% similar ("BDR Owner assigned date" ↔ "Owner assigned date")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
BDR Owner assigned datebdr_owner_assign_date
Winnerdate
96%
companyinformation
Owner assigned datehubspot_owner_assigneddate
HubSpot-defined · can't be removeddatetime
0%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 96%

Cisco

83%executed

2 fields look equivalent — one label contains the other ("Cisco" ↔ "Victor Cisco")

  • ›One label contains the other ("Cisco" ↔ "Victor Cisco")
  • ›100% of distinct values appear in both fields
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
Ciscocisco
Winnerenumeration
10%
companyinformation
Victor Ciscovictor_cisco
enumeration
1%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 12% vs best individual: 10%

Lutenant Stale Sync

81%proposed

5 fields look equivalent — values agree on 92% of 12 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 92% of 12 co-filled records
  • ›Labels are 77% similar ("Lutenant Customer Sync" ↔ "Lutenant Stale Sync")
  • ›Values agree on 88% of 1028 co-filled records
  • ›Labels are 68% similar ("Lutenant Customer Sync" ↔ "Lutenant Creation Sync")
MEMBER FIELDS · 5— click a field to choose the winner
Lutenant Customer Synccustomer_lutenant_sync
Winnerenumeration
96%
lutenant_sync_group
Lutenant Opportunity Synclutenant_opportunity_sync
enumeration
96%
lutenant_sync_group
Lutenant Stale Synclutenant_stale_sync
enumeration
96%
lutenant_sync_group
Lutenant Ownership Wipelutenant_ownership_wipe
enumeration
23%
companyinformation
Lutenant Creation Synclutenant_sync_name
enumeration
1%
lutenant_sync_group
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 96%

hockeystack-crm

79%proposed

6 fields look equivalent — values agree on 100% of 291 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 100% of 291 co-filled records
  • ›Values agree on 100% of 125 co-filled records
  • ›Values agree on 99% of 230 co-filled records
  • ›Values agree on 99% of 154 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 6— click a field to choose the winner
hockeystack__web_visithockeystack_web_visit
Winnerbool
92%
hockeystack
hockeystack__get_demohockeystack_get_demo
bool
55%
hockeystack
hockeystack__high_intenthockeystack_high_intent
bool
52%
hockeystack
hockeystack-crmhockeystack_crm
enumeration
30%
companyinformation
planhat_frequent_visitorplanhat_frequent_visitor
bool
29%
hockeystack
hockeystack__frequent_visitorhockeystack_frequent_visitor
bool
17%
hockeystack
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 92%

Crossbeam Partner

78%proposed

3 fields look equivalent — values agree on 100% of 22 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 100% of 22 co-filled records
  • ›Labels are 74% similar ("Crossbeam Partner" ↔ "Crossbeam Partner Label")
  • ›Labels share key terms ("Customer To Partner (Crossbeam)" ↔ "Crossbeam Partner")
  • ›Values agree on 70% of 27 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 3— click a field to choose the winner
Crossbeam Partnercrossbeam_partner
Winnerstring
14%
companyinformation
Customer To Partner (Crossbeam)crossbeam_customer
string
4%
companyinformation
Crossbeam Partner Labelcrossbeam_partner_label
enumeration
2%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 16% vs best individual: 14%

Vainu custom industry

78%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 75% similar ("Vainu custom industry" ↔ "Vainu Custom Industry (text)")

  • ›Labels are 75% similar ("Vainu custom industry" ↔ "Vainu Custom Industry (text)")
  • ›Values agree on 81% of 690 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
Vainu custom industryvainu_custom_industry
Winnerenumeration
98%
vainu_company_data
Vainu Custom Industry (text)vainu_custom_industry_text
string
65%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 98%

Gainsight Followers

75%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — values agree on 100% of 177 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 100% of 177 co-filled records
  • ›100% of distinct values appear in both fields
  • ›Labels are 50% similar ("Gainsight Followers" ↔ "Planhat Linkedin Followers")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
Gainsight Followersgainsight_followers
Winnerenumeration
36%
companyinformation
Planhat Linkedin Followersplanhat_linkedin_followers
enumeration
23%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 41% vs best individual: 36%

Industry

74%proposed

3 fields look equivalent — labels share key terms ("Industry" ↔ "Industry 2.0")

  • ›Labels share key terms ("Industry" ↔ "Industry 2.0")
  • ›Labels are 67% similar ("Industry" ↔ "Sub-Industry")
  • ›Complementary fill — records rarely have both fields set (6/131)
  • ›Complementary fill — records rarely have both fields set (9/92)
MEMBER FIELDS · 3— click a field to choose the winner
Industry 2.0industry_2_0
Winnerenumeration
20%
companyinformation
Industryindustry
HubSpot-defined · can't be removedenumeration
12%
companyinformation
Sub-Industrysub_industry
string
9%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 23% vs best individual: 20%

Linkedin link

71%executed

3 fields look equivalent — values agree on 93% of 134 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 93% of 134 co-filled records
  • ›Values agree on 85% of 137 co-filled records
  • ›Values agree on 81% of 134 co-filled records
  • ›Labels share key terms ("Linkedin link" ↔ "LinkedIn Link Master")
MEMBER FIELDS · 3
LinkedIn Company Pagelinkedin_company_page
WinnerHubSpot-defined · can't be removedstring
100%
socialmediainformation
Linkedin linklinkedin_link
string
100%
vainu_company_data
LinkedIn Link Masterlinkedin_link_master
string
98%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 100%

Country (V2)

71%executed

2 fields look equivalent — values agree on 92% of 126 co-filled records

  • ›Values agree on 92% of 126 co-filled records
  • ›88% of distinct values appear in both fields
  • ›Labels are 50% similar ("Country/Region" ↔ "Country (V2)")
MEMBER FIELDS · 2
Country/Regioncountry
WinnerHubSpot-defined · can't be removedstring
100%
companyinformation
Country (V2)country__v2_
enumeration
92%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 100%

Engagement Minutes (1 mo.)

69%proposed

3 fields look equivalent — labels share key terms ("Engagement Minutes (1 mo.)" ↔ "Engagement Minutes (3 mo.)")

  • ›Labels share key terms ("Engagement Minutes (1 mo.)" ↔ "Engagement Minutes (3 mo.)")
  • ›Labels are 81% similar ("Engagement Minutes (1 mo.)" ↔ "Engagement Minutes (7 days)")
  • ›Field descriptions overlap (100%)
  • ›Values agree on 41% of 1041 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 3— click a field to choose the winner
Engagement Minutes (1 mo.)demandbase_engagement_minutes_last_30_days
Winnernumber
98%
demandbase
Engagement Minutes (3 mo.)demandbase_engagement_minutes_last_3_months
number
98%
demandbase
Engagement Minutes (7 days)demandbase_engagement_minutes_last_7_days
number
98%
demandbase
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 98%

Last G2 Intent Date

67%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 85% similar ("First G2 Intent Date" ↔ "Last G2 Intent Date")

  • ›Labels are 85% similar ("First G2 Intent Date" ↔ "Last G2 Intent Date")
  • ›Values agree on 40% of 598 co-filled records
  • ›37% of distinct values appear in both fields
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
First G2 Intent Datefirst_g2_intent_date
Winnerdate
56%
*_sales_-_master_properties
Last G2 Intent Datelast_g2_intent_date
date
56%
*_sales_-_master_properties
Logical fill rate: 65% vs best individual: 56%

Partner Label

66%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — one label contains the other ("Partner Label" ↔ "Partner Label Frame Agreement")

  • ›One label contains the other ("Partner Label" ↔ "Partner Label Frame Agreement")
  • ›Values agree on 67% of 12 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
Partner Label Frame Agreementcommercial_partner_label
Winnerenumeration
5%
companyinformation
Partner Labelcisco_partner
enumeration
4%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 6% vs best individual: 5%

Number of Employees

63%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 79% similar ("Number of Employees (V2)" ↔ "Number of Employees")

  • ›Labels are 79% similar ("Number of Employees (V2)" ↔ "Number of Employees")
  • ›Values agree on 44% of 1012 co-filled records
  • ›47% of distinct values appear in both fields
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
Number of Employeesnumberofemployees
WinnerHubSpot-defined · can't be removednumber
99%
companyinformation
Number of Employees (V2)number_of_employees__cognism_
number
95%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 100% vs best individual: 99%

Note count

60%proposed

2 fields look equivalent — labels are 60% similar ("Note count" ↔ "Note Score")

  • ›Labels are 60% similar ("Note count" ↔ "Note Score")
  • ›59% of distinct values appear in both fields
  • ›Values agree on 1% of 619 co-filled records
MEMBER FIELDS · 2— click a field to choose the winner
Note countnote_count
Winnernumber
58%
companyinformation
Note Scorenote_score
number
58%
companyinformation
Logical fill rate: 67% vs best individual: 58%