What is Entity Resolution?

  • Company data & APIs
  • Entity matching & transformation
  • 4 min read

The short answer

Entity resolution determines whether different records refer to the same real-world entity. For company data, it connects names, identifiers, addresses and other evidence while distinguishing similar but unrelated businesses. A resolved match should be explainable, especially when it changes ownership, risk or a commercial workflow.

Entity Resolution: why it matters

Duplicate records fragment customer history, while false matches attach information to the wrong company. Both problems can affect reporting, onboarding and lead assignment. A matching process must therefore balance finding genuine duplicates with protecting separate legal entities from being merged.

How to assess it in practice

Normalise inputs carefully and preserve the original values. Use registration identifiers and jurisdiction where available, then evaluate supporting fields. Create clear states for accepted matches, candidates requiring review and unresolved records. Retain the matched entity identifier, evidence fields and decision method. Test common names, shared domains and group structures before applying the process broadly.

Worked example

Two companies share the name Example Services but are registered in different countries. A name-only matcher proposes a duplicate. The reviewed process checks the jurisdiction and legal identifiers, keeps the businesses separate and records why the original suggestion was rejected.

Illustrative scenario

Two unrelated firms share a name and use different domains. The system retains ambiguity instead of assigning the lead to the first confident-looking result.

Distinctions that matter

Entity resolution decides identity equivalence. Corporate linkage connects distinct entities. CRM enrichment adds data to a record after the correct entity has been selected. These processes depend on each other but should remain distinguishable in the workflow.

Evidence and review output

Review these

  • Matching keys and namespaces
  • Conflicts and candidate evidence
  • Evaluation labels and outcomes

The review should produce

An explainable match, non-match or unresolved result that can be reviewed and reversed when necessary.

Across this family

Define whether records refer to the same legal entity before choosing a matching technique. Similar names, websites and addresses may describe related businesses rather than duplicates. Evaluate the cost of incorrect links and preserve ambiguity when the evidence cannot distinguish candidates.

A note from practice

Resolution should represent matches, non-matches and unresolved candidates separately. Optimise for the cost of wrong entity assignment, not simply the highest percentage of populated records.

Limits and common mistakes

A shared domain can indicate a group website rather than a single legal entity. A shared address can be a registered agent’s office. Confidence scores should be interpreted against a validated policy, and a high score should not hide which fields drove the result. Preserve evidence so a wrong match can be investigated later.

Related questions

  • What is entity resolution in company data?
  • How do you evaluate entity resolution at scale?

Frequently asked questions

Is a shared domain enough to merge companies?

No. A domain may be used by several legal entities.

Should match evidence be stored?

Yes. Record which fields supported the decision and which entity was selected.

Are matching and linkage the same?

No. Matching identifies the same entity; linkage relates different entities.

Continue learning

See the registry record behind every answer.

Primary, government-sourced data on 600M+ companies in 200+ countries, with full source attribution.