Apollo and Clay both help sales and marketing teams build lists of prospects and fill in missing contact details, but they are built around different ideas. Apollo describes itself through a single platform where you search a contact database, request emails and phone numbers, and run outreach. Clay is built around tables where you chain together data providers and AI steps, then pass the results to other tools. Picking between them is less about which is “better” and more about how your team likes to work.
This guide compares what the two vendors document about data, credits, workflow, pricing and privacy. It also gives you a way to run your own fair test before you commit. Prospecting data is personal data, so we spend extra time on how each product describes its handling of it.
How we researched this: we did not run hands-on tests for this article. It is based on the vendor’s own documentation and public sources, checked on 11 November 2026. Features and prices change, so confirm details on the vendor’s site before you buy.
Key takeaways
- Both products meter usage with credits, and both say unused credits do not roll over in the standard way, so you should estimate your monthly volume before choosing a plan.
- Apollo is documented as a contact database plus engagement tools, with waterfall enrichment that stops at the first source that returns a result.
- Clay splits usage into Data Credits (for third-party data) and Actions (for platform work), a model it introduced on 11 March 2026.
- Neither vendor charges for a lookup that returns nothing, according to their own documentation, but the exact rules differ.
- The fairest decision method is a small paid pilot on your own target list, measured on cost per usable contact.
Why compare these two
Teams often look at Apollo and Clay in the same week because both appear in “prospecting stack” discussions. The overlap is real: both can help you find people at target companies, enrich records with emails and phone numbers, and push results into a CRM or sequencing tool. The difference is the starting point.
Apollo starts from a database and a set of ready-made actions. Clay starts from a blank table where each column is a step: look up a company, ask an AI agent to research a detail, check a second data provider if the first finds nothing, and so on. If you want a quick path from search to outreach, the first model may feel natural. If you want to design your own research logic and mix several providers, the second may suit you better.
Before you start, it helps to be clear on your own goal. Our guide on how to choose an AI tool walks through defining the job first, and how to compare AI tools side by side fairly covers the testing habits we refer to later.
Quick overview table
The table below only lists points we found in the vendors’ own pages. Prices are the figures we read on the dates shown, and both vendors change them, so check the live pages.
| Point | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| What it is, per the vendor | A platform for contact data, enrichment, sequences and calling, using credits | A table-based platform for enrichment and GTM workflows, using Data Credits and Actions |
| Usage currency | Credits, renewed at the start of each billing cycle; unused credits expire | Data Credits and Actions; Actions reset each cycle; Data Credits can bank up to a limit on paid plans |
| Free plan | Yes, per a third-party summary of Apollo’s page (75 credits a month) | Yes: 100 Data Credits and 500 Actions a month, with 200 rows per table, per Clay’s page |
| Waterfall enrichment | Documented in Apollo’s help centre; up to 10,000 contacts at once | Documented as multi-provider waterfalls on the plan table |
| Plan model | Per seat, with tiers | Tiered plans with monthly allowances; Enterprise is custom |
| Trial | 14-day trial of Basic, Professional or Organization with 100 credits | Free plan is available instead |
Criteria that matter
Marketing pages for both products list dozens of features. For a prospecting decision, five criteria do most of the work.
- Data coverage for your market. Neither vendor can tell you in advance how well it covers your niche, so this has to be tested.
- How credits are spent. Whether a failed lookup costs you, and how much a phone number costs compared with an email.
- How much control you want over the workflow. Ready-made steps against build-your-own logic.
- Where outreach happens. Inside the same product, or in a tool you already use.
- Privacy and compliance fit. Especially if you contact people in the UK, EU or Switzerland.
Data and enrichment
Apollo
Apollo’s help centre says credits are the currency for activities on the platform. It lists the actions that cost credits: requesting contact emails (verified, net-new emails only) and phone numbers (charged once per contact), advanced enrichment including waterfall enrichment, AI research, API calls that retrieve or enrich contact data, email warm-up beyond one mailbox, domain and mailbox purchases, and calls placed with the built-in dialer.
Its waterfall enrichment overview explains the mechanism. Apollo queries connected data sources one at a time, in an order the admin sets, and stops when it has a result. An optional email or phone validation source can be added. You can enrich up to 10,000 contacts at once, and Apollo says you are charged only when a source returns an email or phone number, whether or not it is verified. No data found means no charge. Sources connected through your own API key use that provider’s pricing rather than Apollo credits.
One detail worth noting: the waterfall page we read does not say which Apollo plans include waterfall enrichment. A third-party summary of Apollo’s plan cards lists it under Basic, but we could not confirm that on Apollo’s own pages, so check before you rely on it.
Clay
Clay’s pricing page describes multi-provider waterfalls, a research agent called Claygent, and a split between Data Credits and Actions. Data Credits pay for third-party data from Clay’s marketplace and start at $0.05 each according to the page, falling with volume. Actions measure platform usage such as enrichment and sending data on, and the page says they cost under $0.01 each. Clay says there is no charge for data credits or actions when an enrichment returns nothing, and that bringing your own API key uses one action per run and no data credits.
In a March 2026 post, Clay said its new pricing took effect on 11 March 2026, that it cut marketplace data prices by between 50 and 90 percent for its most-used enrichments, and that about 80 percent of AI models stay at a flat Data Credit rate while the most advanced models are billed on actual token use with no markup. We read those claims on Clay’s own blog but cannot judge how they apply to your specific enrichments.
Workflow and automation
Apollo’s documentation and pricing summaries describe sequences, a dialer, CRM integrations and workflows as part of the same platform. The help centre notes that primary emails and phone numbers from waterfall enrichment sync to connected HubSpot, Salesforce or Pipedrive accounts. A third-party summary of the plan cards says Basic adds unlimited sequences and CRM integrations, and Professional adds agents, testing, automated workflows and analytics. Treat that list as a lead to verify on the live pricing page.
Clay’s plan table lists features by tier. The Free plan includes unlimited seats and tables, multi-provider waterfalls, Claygent and bring-your-own API keys. Launch adds phone number enrichment, job change signals, unlimited Audiences search and email sending via Clay or integrations. Growth adds CRM auto-sync, HTTP API integrations, webhook signals, web intent signals and priority support. Enterprise adds items such as SSO/SAML, SCIM, role-based access, data warehouse connections and a custom data processing agreement.
| Workflow point | Apollo (documented) | Clay (documented) |
|---|---|---|
| Where you design logic | Admin sets the order of waterfall sources | Each table column is a step you configure |
| CRM sync | HubSpot, Salesforce and Pipedrive named for waterfall results | CRM auto-sync listed on the Growth plan |
| AI research | AI research costs 1 credit per run, per a third-party summary | Claygent listed on all plans; model costs vary |
| Bring your own keys | Possible for waterfall sources; provider bills you | Possible; uses one action per run, no data credits |
Pricing models
Checked on 11 November 2026. Confirm all figures on the vendor pages before you decide, and see how to read an AI tool’s pricing page for the questions to ask.
Clay
Clay’s pricing page lists Free at $0, Launch from $167 a month and Growth from $446 a month, with annual billing shown and a stated 10 percent saving. The same page’s FAQ gives $185 and $495 for Launch and Growth, and the March 2026 blog post also gives $185 and $495. We could not reconcile this, so treat the numbers as “from roughly $167 to $185” and “from roughly $446 to $495” and ask Clay which applies to you. Enterprise is custom with an annual commitment. Extra Data Credits mid-cycle carry a 30 percent premium on Launch and Growth.
Apollo
We could not open Apollo’s own pricing page in this research. A third-party article that cites a capture of the page from 28 September 2026 lists Free, Basic, Professional and Organization plans priced per seat, with Basic at $49 a month billed annually and $65 monthly, Professional at $79 and $99, and Organization at $119 on annual billing with a three-seat minimum. It also lists credits per seat. Because this is secondary, use it only as an indication and confirm on Apollo’s site. Apollo’s help centre confirms that unused credits expire at the end of each billing cycle, are non-refundable under its terms, and that add-on credits can be bought and renew each cycle.
| Pricing point | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Billing unit | Per seat (third-party summary) | Per plan with monthly allowances |
| Unused allowance | Credits expire at end of billing cycle | Actions reset each cycle; Data Credits can roll over up to a stated limit on paid plans |
| Extra credits | Add-on credits, renewing each cycle | Data Credit top-ups at a 30 percent premium on Launch and Growth |
| Failed lookup | No charge for waterfall when nothing found | No charge when enrichment returns nothing |
| Source of figures | Help centre (credits); third-party for prices | Clay pricing page and blog |
Privacy and data
Prospecting means handling business contact data about named people. Apollo’s GDPR overview says it processes business contact data on a “legitimate interests” basis supported by an assessment done with outside counsel and an external data protection officer. It says it notifies individuals in the UK, EU and Switzerland when their data is added, places people who opt out on a suppression list, and lets individuals request access or deletion through its privacy center. It cites SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports and Data Privacy Framework certifications. It also says customers remain responsible for any additional notices or consent their own use requires. Admins can use GDPR settings to remove EU-located contacts from prospecting and emailing, but these settings do not apply in the Chrome extension.
For Clay, the plan table lists custom data processing agreements, SSO/SAML, SCIM and IP allowlists on Enterprise. We did not find a Clay privacy statement comparable to Apollo’s GDPR page during this research, so we cannot compare them on that point. Because Clay passes your records through third-party data providers you select, ask which providers receive your data and under what terms. For general practice, see how to protect company data when using AI tools. This is general information, not legal advice on outreach rules in your region.
Who each suits
Apollo may suit you if
- You want search, enrichment and outreach in one place.
- Your team prefers ready-made steps over building workflows.
- You want to estimate costs per seat and per credit.
- You need documented GDPR settings for contacts in the EU.
Clay may suit you if
- You want to combine several data providers and AI research in one table.
- You have someone comfortable designing and maintaining workflows.
- You already use a separate sequencing tool and mainly need enrichment.
- You want to bring your own API keys for specific providers.
Look elsewhere or think twice if
- You only need a few dozen contacts a month, where free tiers or manual research may be enough.
- You cannot yet describe your ideal customer clearly, since neither tool fixes an unclear target.
- Your legal team has not approved the sourcing of prospect data.
How to run your own test
Because we did not run hands-on tests, the most reliable evidence is your own. Our guide on testing an AI tool before you pay applies directly. A simple protocol:
- Pick 100 target accounts and 3 job titles that you would genuinely contact.
- Run the same list through both tools, using free tiers or trials where possible.
- Record how many contacts each returns, how many emails bounce when you verify them, and how many credits or actions each run used.
- Check a sample of 20 records by hand against LinkedIn or the company website.
- Divide total spend by the number of contacts you would actually email. That is your cost per usable contact.
- Repeat with a second, different segment, since coverage varies by region and industry.
Also time the setup. A tool that is cheaper per contact but takes a week to configure may cost more in practice.
Decision checklist
- Have I defined target roles, regions and monthly contact volume?
- Do I know what a phone number costs against an email on each tool?
- Do I understand whether credits roll over or expire?
- Have I confirmed the plan I need includes waterfall enrichment or CRM sync?
- Is there a documented privacy approach that matches the regions I contact?
- Have I tested both on my own list and compared cost per usable contact?
- Do I know who will maintain the workflow after setup?
Frequently asked questions
Is Apollo or Clay cheaper?
We cannot say. They price differently, per seat with credits for Apollo (per a third-party summary) and per plan with Data Credits and Actions for Clay. The cost depends on your volume and which data you request, so test with your own list.
Can I use both together?
Clay documents HTTP API integrations and bring-your-own-key options, and Apollo documents API access, so combining them is plausible. We did not verify a specific integration, so confirm with each vendor.
Do failed lookups cost credits?
Apollo says waterfall enrichment charges only when a source returns an email or phone number. Clay says there is no charge for data credits or actions when an enrichment returns nothing. Check the current terms for other actions.
Do credits roll over?
Apollo says unused credits expire at the end of each billing cycle. Clay says Actions reset each cycle, and its page describes limited banking of Data Credits on Launch and Growth, though the page is inconsistent about the exact limit.
Is prospect data compliant with GDPR?
Apollo publishes a legitimate-interests approach and says customers are responsible for their own notices and consent. Whether your outreach is lawful depends on your circumstances. This is general information, not legal advice.
Which is better for beginners?
Based on the documentation alone, a ready-made platform may be easier to start with, while table-based workflows give more control. Your own trial will tell you more than any summary.
Conclusion
Apollo and Clay overlap on enrichment but differ in philosophy. Apollo documents a credit system wrapped around a contact database and outreach tools. Clay documents a table-based system with a two-part credit model and many provider options. Neither is a clear winner from documents alone. Choose Apollo if you want an all-in-one flow and per-seat planning, and Clay if you want to design your own enrichment logic, then confirm with a short pilot.
Before you buy, read how to read an AI tool’s pricing page, plan a trial using how to test an AI tool before you pay for it, and check how to check AI output for mistakes, because enriched data and AI research can both be wrong.
Sources
- Apollo help centre: What Are Credits, accessed 11 November 2026
- Apollo help centre: Waterfall Enrichment Overview, accessed 11 November 2026
- Apollo help centre: GDPR Overview, accessed 11 November 2026
- FullEnrich: Apollo pricing (third party, citing Apollo page captured 28 September 2026), accessed 11 November 2026
- Clay pricing page, accessed 11 November 2026
- Clay blog: Introducing Clay’s new pricing, accessed 11 November 2026
