Comparison · Independent · Updated June 2026
Clay vs ZoomInfo
In short
Clay (7.4/10) and ZoomInfo (7.3/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Clay leads on pricing & transparency, while ZoomInfo leads on ease of use. Clay publishes its pricing; ZoomInfo is demo-gated.
Scorecard, side by side
| Our rubric | Clay | ZoomInfo |
|---|---|---|
| Overall score | 7.4 | 7.3 |
| Data accuracy | 7.5 | 8.0 |
| Coverage | 8.0 | 8.5 |
| Ease of use | 7.8 | 8.7 |
| Pricing & transparency | 7.0 | 4.0 |
| Compliance | 6.5 | 5.5 |
Scores come from the same rubric applied to every provider. Higher value in each row is highlighted.
Third-party ratings
| Public rating | Clay | ZoomInfo |
|---|---|---|
| G2 | 4.6/5 (225) | 4.5/5 (9,102) |
| Capterra | 4.7/5 (10) | 4.1/5 (319) |
Pricing & data, side by side
| Attribute | Clay | ZoomInfo |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | from $2,004/yr | ~$14,995/yr |
| Pricing transparency | Published | Demo-gated |
| Free plan | Yes | No |
| Free trial | Yes | No |
| 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 | ZoomInfo |
|---|---|---|
| Data enrichment | Waterfall across 150+ providers | yes |
| Verified email | Via waterfall (work + personal) | yes |
| Mobile / direct dials | Via waterfall | Yes (~135M numbers claimed) |
| Intent / signals | Via integrations (6sense, G2) | Yes, proprietary streaming intent |
| Firmographic data | yes | Deep: org charts, scoops, news signals |
| AI research agent | Claygent | no |
| Integrations | 150+ | no |
| Free plan | Yes (100 credits/mo) | no |
| Contract | Monthly or annual | Annual; multi-year common, auto-renews |
| GDPR / compliance | SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001, GDPR/CCPA | GDPR/CCPA stated; right-of-publicity suits |
| US coverage | Strong (aggregate) | Excellent (deepest in category) |
| UK / int'l coverage | Depends on routed providers | Moderate (paid Data Passport add-on) |
| Website visitor ID | no | Yes (WebSights) |
| Technographic data | no | yes |
| Public company | no | Nasdaq: GTM (formerly ZI) |
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.
ZoomInfo
Pros
- The deepest US database in the category, with 500M+ profiles claimed, org charts, scoops and news signals.
- A genuinely all-in-one platform, bundling intent data, website visitor ID (WebSights), enrichment and technographics together.
- Precise, powerful search and filtering that experienced teams rate highly (G2 4.5/5 from 9,000+ reviews).
- Strong CRM and workflow integrations.
Cons
- Opaque, five-figure pricing, with Vendr data putting the median deal near $33,500/yr and all-in costs commonly $30k–$60k.
- Rigid multi-year contracts and 60-day auto-renewal terms are the most common complaint, with state-AG complaints on record.
- Data accuracy decays outside the US and for older records; international coverage is a paid add-on.
- Two US right-of-publicity cases ($29.55M Ramos settlement; Martinez allowed to proceed) reflect ongoing data-subject backlash over being listed.
Frequently asked questions
- Is Clay or ZoomInfo better?
- Clay (7.4/10) and ZoomInfo (7.3/10) score almost level on our rubric; the right pick depends on what you're optimising for. Clay leads on pricing & transparency, while ZoomInfo leads on ease of use. Clay publishes its pricing; ZoomInfo is demo-gated.
- Which is cheaper, Clay or ZoomInfo?
- On entry pricing, Clay is the cheaper way in (from $2,004/yr vs ~$14,995/yr). Credit models differ, so compare what you actually pay per 1,000 contacts, not just the headline.
- Can I use Clay and ZoomInfo together?
- Yes, teams often pair a broad database with a specialist tool. Just avoid paying twice for the same coverage; check where Clay and ZoomInfo overlap before buying both.