About ZoomInfo
ZoomInfo is the Go-To-Market Intelligence Platform used by over 35,000 companies worldwide. The platform combines the industry's most comprehensive B2B database, over 100M+ company profiles and 300M+ professional contacts, with AI-powered applications, intelligent agents, and workflow automation that help sales, marketing, and revenue operations teams find and close their next deal.
With $1.25 billion in annual revenue and a rapidly growing AI portfolio including ZoomInfo Copilot, multi-agent frameworks, and MCP-powered integrations, ZoomInfo's engineering organization is one of the most AI-forward in enterprise SaaS. Over 1,300 engineers across multiple geographies rely on AI-assisted development tools every day: code generation, framework migrations, and automated testing.
The Challenge
ZoomInfo's engineering leadership had already made a major bet on AI-assisted development. After a rigorous four-phase evaluation, the company had rolled out GitHub Copilot to over 400 developers, measured a 33% suggestion acceptance rate, and documented 20% time savings across the engineering org. Engineers were also increasingly adopting Claude Code for complex tasks like multi-agent framework migrations. One project used 10 parallel AI coding agents, 2 code review agents, and a dedicated testing agent to migrate an entire frontend codebase.
But as AI tool adoption exploded beyond a single vendor, the Cloud & AI Infrastructure team, led by Arkady Landes, Senior Cloud DevOps Manager, faced a new class of operational challenges:
- Fragmented access. Engineers were using GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, and other AI tools through separate provider accounts, with no unified control plane.
- No visibility. There was no single view of which teams were using which models, how much they were spending, or what data was flowing through AI APIs.
- Governance gaps. With 1,300+ engineers across multiple countries, the team needed role-based access controls, approved model lists, and policy enforcement. Not just per-tool admin panels.
- Provider lock-in risk. Tying engineering workflows to a single LLM provider meant vulnerability to outages, pricing changes, and capability gaps.
- Scaling complexity. Every new AI tool or model required a separate integration, a separate budget conversation, and a separate security review.

