COMPARISON

Clay vs Apollo: Data and Enrichment Compared for RevOps

Clay and Apollo both help you find and enrich prospect data, but they solve the problem differently. Clay is a data orchestration layer that pulls from 75+ providers and lets you build custom enrichment workflows. Apollo is an all-in-one platform combining a 275M+ contact database with built-in email sequences. For RevOps, the choice depends on whether you need a flexible data layer or a complete prospecting stack.

Quick Verdict: Clay is the superior enrichment and data orchestration tool. Apollo is the better all-in-one prospecting platform. If your priority is data quality and coverage across multiple sources, Clay wins. If you want a single tool for finding contacts, enriching them, and running outbound sequences, Apollo is more practical. Most RevOps teams above 50 reps end up needing both.

Quick Comparison

Clay vs Apollo at a Glance

Factor	Clay	Apollo
Pricing	From $149/mo (credit-based) Credits burn fast	Free tier available; paid from $49/user/mo Lower entry
Best For	Data enrichment and orchestration	All-in-one prospecting + engagement
Category	Data Orchestration	Sales Intelligence + Engagement
Contact Database	Aggregates 75+ sources Broadest coverage	275M+ contacts, proprietary Large built-in DB
Email Sequences	No native sequences	Built-in Included
CRM Integration	Salesforce, HubSpot via workflows	Salesforce, HubSpot native sync Stronger
Learning Curve	Steep Requires ops skill	Moderate Easier adoption

Feature Breakdown

Detailed Feature Comparison

Feature	Clay	Apollo
Data Enrichment	Waterfall across 75+ providers Best in class	Single-source proprietary database
Custom Workflows	Spreadsheet-style with formulas Highly flexible	Predefined sequence templates
AI Research	AI agent for web scraping and research Unique	AI-assisted email writing
Email Sending	Requires external tool	Built-in with deliverability tools Integrated
Phone Numbers	Sourced from enrichment providers	Built-in verified mobiles Included
Intent Data	Via Bombora and other integrations	Buyer intent signals included
API / Extensibility	Highly extensible, webhook support Developer-friendly	Standard API, less customizable

Decision Framework

When to Use Which

Choose Clay When

Data quality and coverage is your top priority and single-source databases are insufficient for your ICP
You have RevOps or data ops capacity to build and maintain custom enrichment workflows
You already have a SEP (Outreach, Salesloft) and need the data layer, not another engagement tool
Your enrichment needs are complex (firmographic + technographic + intent + custom signals)
You want to consolidate multiple data vendor subscriptions into one orchestration layer

Choose Apollo When

You want one platform for prospecting, enrichment, and email outreach without managing multiple tools
Budget is tight and the free tier or $49/user/mo plan covers your needs
Your team needs to be productive quickly without complex workflow configuration
Built-in email sequences and a dialer matter because you do not have Outreach or Salesloft
You value simplicity over maximum data coverage and are okay with single-source data

When to Consider Both or Neither

Many mid-market and enterprise RevOps teams use Clay for enrichment and Apollo as one of the data sources Clay queries, or use Apollo for prospecting and Clay to enrich the results before pushing to CRM. These tools are complementary more than competitive. The "both" approach works well if you can justify the combined cost and have ops bandwidth to manage two platforms.

RevOps Perspective

What This Means for Your Stack

RevOps-Specific Considerations

Clay credit consumption is hard to predict. Waterfall enrichment means each record can burn 3-10 credits depending on how many providers you query. Model your monthly enrichment volume carefully before committing to a plan tier.
Apollo data quality varies by segment. Tech companies in the US have strong coverage. Niche industries, international markets, and SMB contacts have notable gaps. Test with your actual ICP before buying annual.
CRM write-back differs significantly. Apollo has native bidirectional sync with Salesforce. Clay requires you to build the write-back workflow yourself, which gives more control but demands more ops time.
Duplicate management is critical with both tools. Apollo can create duplicate contacts if your CRM dedup rules do not catch them. Clay workflows need explicit dedup steps built in or records will proliferate.
Compliance implications: Clay aggregates data from many sources, which can complicate your GDPR data-source documentation. Apollo owns their database, making data provenance simpler to document for compliance audits.

Summary

Winner by Use Case

Use Case	Winner	Why
Data enrichment quality	Clay	Waterfall across 75+ providers beats any single source
All-in-one prospecting	Apollo	Database + sequences + dialer in one platform
Budget under $200/mo	Apollo	Free tier and low per-user pricing
Complex enrichment logic	Clay	Custom workflows with conditional logic
CRM integration ease	Apollo	Native Salesforce/HubSpot sync out of the box
Enterprise data ops	Clay	Flexibility for custom data pipelines and research

The RevOps Report's Bottom Line

Clay and Apollo are not direct substitutes. Clay is a data orchestration platform for RevOps teams that need maximum enrichment quality and custom workflow logic. Apollo is an all-in-one prospecting tool for teams that want simplicity. If you have a dedicated ops person who can build and maintain Clay workflows, the data quality advantage is real. If you need reps prospecting and emailing from one interface with minimal ops involvement, Apollo is the practical choice. Many mature teams use both: Apollo as a data source within Clay, or Clay for enrichment with Apollo for outbound execution.

Get Weekly RevOps Intelligence

Tool reviews, salary benchmarks, and stack recommendations for RevOps leaders.

Subscribe Free

Disclosure: The RevOps Report may receive affiliate compensation from tools mentioned here. Our analysis is independent. Every claim is based on publicly available data and user feedback.

Last Updated: January 2026