Comparison · Independent · Updated June 2026
Apollo vs Clay
In short
Apollo (7.4/10) and Clay (7.4/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Apollo leads on pricing & transparency, while Clay leads on data accuracy.
Scorecard, side by side
| Our rubric | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 7.4 | 7.4 |
| Data accuracy | 6.5 | 7.5 |
| Coverage | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Ease of use | 9.1 | 7.8 |
| Pricing & transparency | 8.5 | 7.0 |
| Compliance | 6.0 | 6.5 |
Scores come from the same rubric applied to every provider. Higher value in each row is highlighted.
Third-party ratings
| Public rating | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| G2 | 4.7/5 (9,665) | 4.6/5 (225) |
| Capterra | 4.5/5 (394) | 4.7/5 (10) |
Pricing & data, side by side
| Attribute | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | from $588/yr | from $2,004/yr |
| Pricing transparency | Published | Published |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Free trial | Yes | Yes |
| Verified email | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mobile / direct dials | ✓ | ✓ |
| Intent data | ✓ | ✓ |
| Website visitor ID | – | – |
| CRM enrichment | ✓ | ✓ |
Feature by feature
A union of both vendors' documented features. A dash means the vendor doesn't list that attribute, not necessarily that it's missing.
| Feature | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Verified work email | yes | Via waterfall (work + personal) |
| Mobile / direct dials | Yes (credit-based) | Via waterfall |
| Intent / buying signals | yes | Via integrations (6sense, G2) |
| Website visitor ID | no | no |
| CRM enrichment | yes | Waterfall across 150+ providers |
| Multichannel sequencer | Yes (email + call + LinkedIn) | no |
| Built-in dialer | Yes (higher tiers) | no |
| Chrome extension | yes | no |
| Free plan | Yes, generous | Yes (100 credits/mo) |
| Contract | Monthly or annual (Org: 3-seat min) | Monthly or annual |
| GDPR / compliance | GDPR/CCPA stated; community-data model | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, GDPR/CCPA |
| US coverage | Strong | Strong (aggregate) |
| UK / EU coverage | Weaker: accuracy drops outside the US | Depends on routed providers |
| Firmographic data | no | yes |
| AI research agent | no | Claygent |
| Integrations | no | 150+ |
Visit Apollo
We may earn a commission when you buy through links on this site. It never affects our scores, rankings or verdicts. See our methodology.
Apollo
Pros
- All-in-one, with a large contact database, multichannel sequencer and dialer in one subscription, replacing a multi-tool stack.
- Strong value for money, among the lowest price-per-seat in the category, with a genuinely usable free plan.
- Ease of use is the
- 200M+ contacts claimed with strong US coverage and 65+ search filters.
Cons
- Data accuracy is the recurring complaint, especially outside the US, where independent tests put UK/EU accuracy well below the headline 98.5% claim.
- Bounce rates on Apollo-sourced emails are reported at 15–25%+, higher internationally.
- Its crowdsourced "living data network" model raises GDPR-consent questions for European outreach.
- Support is slow on lower tiers, and billing and account-suspension disputes are a recurring complaint.
Clay
Pros
- Waterfall enrichment chains 150+ data sources, so match rates beat any single provider; independent tests cite 80–95% email finds.
- Genuinely flexible, with spreadsheet-style workflows, conditional logic, an AI research agent (Claygent) and 150+ integrations.
- Transparent self-serve credit pricing with a free plan, and a "bring your own API key" option to cut data costs.
- Backed by a $3.1bn-valuation business (CapitalG-led Series C), so it's well-resourced and fast-moving.
Cons
- Steep learning curve; reviewers report 4–6 weeks to get fluent, and it's best with a dedicated GTM/RevOps owner.
- Credit costs can be unpredictable; failed lookups still consume credits, and top-ups carry a reported markup.
- It owns no data, so accuracy and compliance depend on the providers you route through.
- Overkill, and over budget, for small teams that just need a simple contact list.
Frequently asked questions
- Is Apollo or Clay better?
- Apollo (7.4/10) and Clay (7.4/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Apollo leads on pricing & transparency, while Clay leads on data accuracy.
- Which is cheaper, Apollo or Clay?
- On entry pricing, Apollo is the cheaper way in (from $588/yr vs from $2,004/yr). Credit models differ, so compare what you actually pay per 1,000 contacts, not just the headline.
- Can I use Apollo and Clay together?
- Yes, teams often pair a broad database with a specialist tool. Just avoid paying twice for the same coverage; check where Apollo and Clay overlap before buying both.