I've spent weeks digging through G2 reviews, Reddit threads, pricing pages, and real user feedback on both platforms. Here's the thing most comparisons miss: these tools solve fundamentally different problems. One wants to be the best data layer in your stack. The other wants to be your entire stack.
Before we get into the details, here's what you're really looking at. I've stripped out the marketing fluff.
| Factor | Clay | Apollo |
|---|---|---|
| Starting Price | $149/mo (2,000 credits) Unlimited users | $49/user/mo Per-seat |
| Pricing Model | Credit-based consumption Burns fast | Per-seat + credits Scales with team |
| Data Source | 100+ providers (waterfall) Best coverage | Single proprietary database Same as competitors |
| Built-in Outreach | No Need separate tool | Yes (sequences, dialer, email) All-in-one |
| Learning Curve | Steep Often need agency | Gentle Productive in hours |
| Total Funding | $204M | $251M |
| G2 Rating | 4.9/5 (500+ reviews) | 4.8/5 (9,000+ reviews) |
| Best For | Data quality obsessives with ops capacity | Teams who want one tool, not five |
| The Big Risk | Credit burn + complexity | Data accuracy + contract terms |
Clay raised $100M in August 2025 at a $3.1B valuation. That's a 6x increase from their January round. They're on track for $100M revenue, tripling from 2024. CapitalG led, with Sequoia and Meritech participating. Customers include OpenAI, Anthropic, Canva, and Rippling.
Source: TechCrunch (August 2025)
The pitch is genuinely compelling. Instead of buying separate subscriptions to Clearbit, Hunter, ZoomInfo, and a dozen other providers, you pay for Clay credits and access all of them through one interface. If one provider can't find an email, Clay automatically tries the next one. That's waterfall enrichment.
But here's what they don't lead with: Clay isn't really a "tool" in the traditional sense. It's more like a programmable spreadsheet for your GTM data. You build workflows. You configure logic. You connect APIs. And that requires either (a) a technical RevOps person, (b) a dedicated GTM Engineer, or (c) an agency.
Let me be clear about this. Clay's data coverage genuinely beats Apollo's. It's not even close.
Apollo has one database. 275 million contacts, sure. But it's the same database everyone else using Apollo is hitting. You're reaching the same prospects as your competitors, with the same contact info, at the same time.
Clay pulls from 100+ providers. Clearbit, Hunter, Dropcontact, People Data Labs, ZoomInfo (if you bring your own key), and dozens more. If Provider A can't find an email, Clay checks Provider B. Then C. Then D. That's why users report enrichment rates jumping from 40% to 87%.
But the data depth goes beyond contact info:
Apollo gives you a name, title, email, and phone. Clay gives you a research dossier. That's the difference.
| Plan | Monthly | Credits | Per Credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | 100/mo | — |
| Starter | $149 ($134 annual) | 2,000/mo | ~$0.07 |
| Explorer | $349 ($314 annual) | 10,000/mo | ~$0.03 |
| Pro | $800 ($720 annual) | 50,000/mo | ~$0.016 |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | — |
The catch? Different enrichments cost different credits. Finding an email might cost 1-2 credits. Mobile numbers can cost 5-25 credits depending on the provider. Claygent AI research can burn 5-25 credits per query. And if an enrichment fails? You still pay.
One thing that bugs me: CRM integrations are only available on Pro ($800/mo) and above. If you're on Explorer and want to sync with Salesforce, you're out of luck.
This is the part nobody wants to talk about. Clay isn't a tool you hand to a sales rep and say "go prospect." It's a platform that requires real configuration.
Clay essentially created an entire job category: the "GTM Engineer." These are technical ops people who build and maintain Clay workflows. Average salary? $120-180K. Clay has published guides on this role, and there are now hundreds of job postings for it.
If you don't want to hire in-house, agencies that specialize in Clay charge $2,000-5,000/month. That's on top of your Clay subscription.
I went back and forth on whether to include this, but it's important: Clay's flexibility is both its strength and its biggest barrier. You can build incredibly sophisticated workflows that no other tool can match. But "can" and "will" are different things. Most teams don't have the bandwidth to actually build those workflows.
But when it works, it really works:
Apollo raised $100M in August 2023 at a $1.6B valuation. Bain Capital Ventures led. They've grown revenue 9x since 2021 and serve over 500,000 companies. Unlike Clay's explosive recent growth, Apollo's been building steadily for a decade.
Source: TechCrunch (August 2023)
One platform for everything. Search 275 million contacts, build targeted lists, drop leads into email sequences, make calls from a built-in dialer, and track engagement. No integrations to configure. No tools to stitch together.
For a small team without existing infrastructure, that's genuinely valuable. You can be prospecting within an hour of signing up. Try doing that with Clay.
| Plan | Monthly | Annual (per user) | Key Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 10K email credits, 2 sequences |
| Basic | $59/user | $49/user | Unlimited email, 75 mobile/mo |
| Professional | $99/user | $79/user | Unlimited sequences, 100 mobile/mo |
| Organization | $149/user | $119/user | 200 mobile/mo, 3 user minimum |
That looks cheaper than Clay at first glance. But do the math for a 10-person team:
Apollo Organization: $119 × 10 = $1,190/month
Clay Pro: $720/month (unlimited users, 50K credits)
Clay's unlimited users model wins at scale. But if you're a solo founder or a 2-3 person team who just needs to prospect, Apollo's $49-79/user is hard to beat.
Apollo has a Trustpilot problem. 2.2/5 average rating. That's... not great. When you dig into the reviews, two themes emerge: aggressive auto-renewals and data accuracy issues.
Here's my honest take, broken down by company stage. And yes, for some of you, the answer is "start with one and graduate to the other."
Here's the math: 3 sales reps × $79/user = $237/month for prospecting, sequences, and a dialer. Done.
Clay Starter ($149/mo) gives you better enrichment, but then you still need to buy a separate outreach tool. At this stage, your time is more valuable than marginal data quality improvements.
The math changes: 25 users × $119/user = $2,975/month on Apollo Organization. Clay Pro at $720/month with unlimited users is 75% cheaper on the subscription alone.
Many teams at this stage use both. Apollo for volume prospecting, Clay for strategic account research. It's not either/or.
The pattern I see most often: Clay for high-value account research, Apollo (or similar) for volume prospecting.
If budget forces a choice and you have ops capacity, lean Clay. At 50+ users, the per-seat economics of Apollo become punishing.
If you're going to pick one:
If neither Clay nor Apollo feels right, here's the landscape. Fair warning: every tool has tradeoffs.
| Tool | Starting Price | Contract | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lusha | $49/mo | Monthly available | Simple enrichment, Chrome extension, easy start |
| FullEnrich | $29/mo | Monthly | Budget waterfall enrichment (Clay alternative) |
| Persana AI | $85/mo | Monthly | Clay-like features, easier learning curve |
| Cognism | ~$10K/year | Annual | EMEA coverage, phone-verified mobiles |
| ZoomInfo | ~$15K/year | Annual + aggressive | Enterprise, but expect pushy renewals |
The CRO Report delivers weekly market intelligence for VP Sales and CRO-level executives.
Subscribe to The CRO Report Browse All Tool Reviews
The CRO Report