SoftwareGlimpse

Apollo.io vs Clay

Compare Apollo.io and Clay on features, pricing, and buyer fit using the same researched criteria.

Independently recommendedLast updated Aug 18, 20269 evidence sources15 screenshotsHow we compare
Compare another
Apollo.io logo

Apollo.io

6.9/10

Best for

  • • Outbound and growth sales teams
  • • RevOps teams consolidating data + engagement
  • • Buyers who need prospecting more than classic CRM boards

Starting from $49.00/user/mo

Free plan available

Visit Apollo.io
Read review

VS

Our verdict

Our verdict

No universal winner

There is no universal winner between Apollo.io and Clay. Choose Apollo.io when Outbound and growth sales teams. Choose Clay when GTM engineers and RevOps teams building multi-provider enrichment waterfalls. Criterion scores come from approved SoftwareGlimpse editorial assessments and first-party research — not hands-on lab testing.

Apollo.io is better for

  • ✓ Ease of use
  • ✓ Email outreach
  • ✓ Value for money

Clay is better for

  • ✓ Prospecting

Tie

  • • Integrations

Choose Apollo.io if: Outbound and growth sales teams

Choose Clay if: GTM engineers and RevOps teams building multi-provider enrichment waterfalls

See detailed comparison ↓
Clay logo

Clay

7.3/10

GTM data enrichment and workflow platform for multi-provider waterfall prospecting — Free + Launch from ~$167/mo headline, Growth, Enterprise.

Best for

  • • GTM engineers and RevOps teams building multi-provider enrichment waterfalls
  • • Growth teams that want Claygent-style AI research inside prospecting workflows
  • • Buyers consolidating many data vendors into one orchestration layer

Starting from $167.00/user/mo

Free plan available

Visit Clay
Read review

Comparison scorecard

Criterion-by-criterion results for Apollo.io and Clay. Numeric bars appear only when both products have approved scores.

  • Ease of use

    How quickly teams become productive.

    Apollo.io

    Apollo.io leads on ease of use (7/10 vs 6/10) from approved SoftwareGlimpse editorial assessments — not hands-on lab testing.

    Apollo.io7/10
    Clay6/10

  • Contact data

    Coverage and quality of contact data.

    Depends

    Apollo.io vs Clay on contact data is not a scored universal winner in current research — choose by job fit.

    Apollo.ioDepends
    ClayDepends

  • Prospecting

    Prospecting workflow strength.

    Clay

    Stronger coverage across prospecting, lead scoring, data enrichment.

    Apollo.ioWeaker
    ClayStronger

  • Email outreach

    Outreach sequencing and deliverability tooling.

    Apollo.io

    Stronger email sequences availability

    Apollo.ioStronger
    ClayWeaker

  • Integrations

    Important third-party integrations.

    Tie

    Apollo.io and Clay are close on integrations (7/10 vs 7/10) from approved SoftwareGlimpse editorial assessments — not hands-on lab testing.

    Apollo.ioTie
    ClayTie

  • Value for money

    Capability relative to total cost of ownership.

    Apollo.io

    Apollo.io has the lower researched starting floor ($49/mo vs $167/mo for Clay) while editorial value scores are close. Confirm renewals and seat math.

    Apollo.io7/10
    Clay7/10

Some visit links may be affiliate links — we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Comparison outcomes are never based on commission.

Affiliate disclosure: some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Rankings and scores are never based on commission. Full disclosure

Methodology disclosure: scores and recommendations follow SoftwareGlimpse evaluation criteria (version 1.0.0). Affiliate relationships do not determine rankings.

How we recommend: product claims are tied to recorded research where available.

AI-assisted disclosure: drafts may be AI-assisted from approved facts and assessments. Humans approve publishable editorial judgments. AI does not invent live prices or claim hands-on testing.