Comparison
Clay vs Apollo.io
Side-by-side comparison of Clay and Apollo.io. See pricing, features, ratings, and more.
| Feature | Clay | Apollo.io |
|---|---|---|
| Rating | 4.3 / 5 | 4.1 / 5 |
| Reviews | 1 | 1 |
| Categories | Lead Management, AI for CRM, Contact Management | Lead Management, Sales Automation, Contact Management |
| Pricing | From $150 | From $49 |
| Pricing Model | freemium | freemium |
| Pros | Waterfall enrichment across 100+ data providers lifts email coverage far beyond any single vendor, and failed zero-result lookups generally cost nothing, Unlimited seats on every plan, including Free — rare at this price, so per-user maths never bite as the team grows, Claygent AI research columns can answer per-row questions no standard data provider covers (tech stack signals, pricing page checks, hiring intent), Free plan plus 14-day trials on paid tiers let you validate real coverage before committing, Mature push integrations (HubSpot, Salesforce, sequencers, webhooks) make it a routing layer rather than a dead-end table | 275M+ contact database with intent topics, job-change signals, and visitor identification in one tool, Fast filter-to-sequence workflow — outbound campaign live the same afternoon, with dialer and meeting scheduling included, Genuinely usable free plan (900 credits/seat/year) and a $49 Basic tier that replaces a database + sequencer stack, Native Salesforce, HubSpot, and Pipedrive integrations so it can sit alongside a real CRM, High review volume and satisfaction (4.7/5 across 9,000+ G2 reviews at time of writing) |
| Cons | Two meters (Actions + Data Credits) make costs hard to forecast; adding phone numbers or AI columns can triple the bill on the same list, Not a CRM — no contact history, email sync, deal pipeline or forecasting; it must feed a second system, Provider outages inside waterfalls degrade coverage silently rather than erroring, so list quality can drop unnoticed, March 2026 pricing overhaul retired the Starter/Explorer/Pro tiers, changing the entry price for new customers and budgets for existing ones, Priority support is gated to Growth and above; Launch-plan users rely on docs and community | Data accuracy below the vendor's 98% claim in practice — 10-15% bounce rates on unverified lists, weaker data outside North America, Credit system is confusing: pooled, no rollover, auto-renewing add-on credits, and all seats must share one plan tier, Reporting is shallow and the interface adds clicks where it shouldn't; no mobile app for data access, CRM and deal layer too thin for complex, multi-stakeholder sales cycles, Users report credit-rule changes over time that unfavorably affected annual-billing customers |
| Best For | Growth and outbound teams that already run a CRM and need to automate list building and enrichment at scale, with a technically curious owner in the seat. | Outbound-focused SMB and mid-market sales teams that need B2B contact data plus sequencing in one subscription and already run their pipeline in a dedicated CRM. |
| Launch Year | — | — |
| HQ Country | US | US |