Comparison · Independent · Updated June 2026
Clay vs Lusha
In short
Clay (7.4/10) and Lusha (7.3/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Clay leads on coverage, while Lusha leads on ease of use.
Scorecard, side by side
| Our rubric | Clay | Lusha |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 7.4 | 7.3 |
| Data accuracy | 7.5 | 7.0 |
| Coverage | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| Ease of use | 7.8 | 9.2 |
| Pricing & transparency | 7.0 | 7.0 |
| Compliance | 6.5 | 6.0 |
Scores come from the same rubric applied to every provider. Higher value in each row is highlighted.
Third-party ratings
| Public rating | Clay | Lusha |
|---|---|---|
| G2 | 4.6/5 (225) | 4.3/5 (1,667) |
| Capterra | 4.7/5 (10) | 4.0/5 (398) |
Pricing & data, side by side
| Attribute | Clay | Lusha |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | from $2,004/yr | from $449/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 | Clay | Lusha |
|---|---|---|
| Data enrichment | Waterfall across 150+ providers | yes |
| Verified email | Via waterfall (work + personal) | yes |
| Mobile / direct dials | Via waterfall | Yes (10 credits each) |
| Intent / signals | Via integrations (6sense, G2) | Yes (job changes, funding, hiring) |
| Firmographic data | yes | no |
| AI research agent | Claygent | no |
| Integrations | 150+ | no |
| Free plan | Yes (100 credits/mo) | Yes (40 credits/mo) |
| Contract | Monthly or annual | Monthly or annual |
| GDPR / compliance | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, GDPR/CCPA | ISO 27701/27001, SOC 2; Garante probe open |
| US coverage | Strong (aggregate) | Strong |
| UK / int'l coverage | Depends on routed providers | Strong |
| Website visitor ID | no | no |
| Chrome extension | no | yes |
| CRM integrations | no | Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Outreach |
| Continental EU coverage | no | Weaker than EU specialists |
Visit Clay
We may earn a commission when you buy through links on this site. It never affects our scores, rankings or verdicts. See our methodology.
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.
Lusha
Pros
- One-click Chrome extension and near-zero learning curve, the most-praised feature on G2 (4.3/5) and Capterra (Ease of Use 4.6/5).
- Reliable verified email and direct-dial data for the US, UK and Canada.
- Genuine free plan (40 credits/month) plus transparent published pricing; test before you talk to sales.
- Independently audited under ISO 27701, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, with TrustArc and ePrivacyseal validation.
Cons
- The credit model bites; revealing a phone number costs 10× an email, so phone-heavy teams burn credits fast.
- Per-seat pricing and reported 8–15% renewal increases push real team cost above the headline.
- Coverage and accuracy thin out across continental Europe and APAC versus EU specialists like Cognism.
- Italy's data-protection regulator opened an investigation in 2025 into how Lusha sources data; a 2020 exposé questioned its early sourcing.
Frequently asked questions
- Is Clay or Lusha better?
- Clay (7.4/10) and Lusha (7.3/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Clay leads on coverage, while Lusha leads on ease of use.
- Which is cheaper, Clay or Lusha?
- On entry pricing, Lusha is the cheaper way in (from $449/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 Clay and Lusha together?
- Yes, teams often pair a broad database with a specialist tool. Just avoid paying twice for the same coverage; check where Clay and Lusha overlap before buying both.