Clay vs Apollo
Two platforms that show up on every GTM shortlist, built around different centers of gravity: Apollo is a database with outreach attached; Clay is a workflow engine for enrichment. Here is the honest split, with sources.
GrowthToolz publishes this comparison. We make LinkedIn Bulk Search, one of the products covered here. Where our product is part of a comparison, we say so and link the sources behind every claim so you can check them.
The short answer
Pick Apollo if you want one platform that takes you from finding people to emailing them: a contact database, sequences, a dialer, and pipeline tools under one per-seat subscription.
Pick Clay if you already have data sources and want to build enrichment workflows on top of them: multi-provider waterfalls, AI research on each row, and logic you design yourself. It is more flexible and asks more of you.
Pick neither if your job is smaller than both: matching a list of names and companies to LinkedIn profiles inside a spreadsheet. That is the one job our own add-on, LinkedIn Bulk Search, does - we make it, and we say more below about why we think that's an honest recommendation and not just steering.
Side by side
| Clay | Apollo | |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | Enrichment and GTM automation platform: build tables, run waterfalls across data providers, research each row with an AI agent | All-in-one sales platform: contact database plus engagement (sequences, dialer, meetings, pipeline) |
| Center of gravity | The workflow you design | The database they maintain |
| Data approach | Multi-provider waterfalls - query several data sources per row and keep the first confident answer | Apollo's own contact database, plus list uploads and a Chrome extension for LinkedIn |
| AI features | Claygent: an AI agent that does web research per row and generates custom data points | AI-researched data and AI features on higher plans (per their pricing page) |
| Outreach | Send emails via Clay or sequencing integrations (from the Launch plan) | Email campaigns on every account, including free; free plans connect Gmail only |
| Free plan | Yes: 500 actions/month, 100 data credits/month, up to 200 rows per table | Yes: a Starter plan that stays free with no time limit |
| Entry paid plan | Launch, from $54/month billed annually ($60 monthly) at 15,000 actions/month | Per-seat paid plans (Basic, Professional, Custom); see their pricing page for current prices |
| Unused credits | See their current terms | Credits reset each billing cycle and do not roll over |
| Learning curve | Real: waterfalls, providers, and table logic are a skill (a consultant ecosystem exists around it) | Lighter for the core loop: search, save to list, sequence |
Where each one wins
Clay wins when…
- You want to combine several data providers instead of trusting one database.
- You need custom research per row - "read this company's site and tell me X" - at scale.
- Your team thinks in workflows and has someone who enjoys building them.
Apollo wins when…
- You want find-to-sequence in one login, without assembling a stack.
- Outreach (sequences, dialer, meetings) matters as much as the data.
- You'd rather learn one conventional tool than design workflows.
Watch them in use
Two independent walkthroughs - one per tool. Neither creator is affiliated with GrowthToolz, Clay, or Apollo; we picked recent, concrete tutorials over vendor promos so you can see the actual interfaces.
Where our product fits (and where it doesn't)
Both platforms are built for teams running ongoing outbound programs. If that's you, the comparison above is the honest one and our add-on is not the answer.
If your actual task is narrower - you have names and companies (or target companies) and you need matching LinkedIn profiles back in the Google Sheet you're already working in - then a database subscription or a workflow platform is more tool than the job calls for. LinkedIn Bulk Search does that one job: it matches your rows against public search results, grades each match so you can review it, and never touches your LinkedIn account. It does not find emails or phones, and it is not a database - the same honesty we apply to Clay and Apollo above.
What we can't verify (and won't claim)
- Data accuracy. Both vendors market accuracy; independent tests we have seen land well below marketed numbers across this whole category. Test on your own list before committing budget.
- Exact prices. Both vendors change pricing and credit definitions often, and Apollo's per-seat prices are rendered dynamically on their site. We linked both pricing pages rather than quote numbers we couldn't confirm.
- Review scores. Apollo displays "4.7/5 based on 9,690 reviews" on its own pricing page. Ratings move; check the live listings.
Sources and how we checked
Checked 5 November 2026 against the products' own public pages, linked below. Features and prices change; check the source before deciding. If you spot something stale, tell us and we'll fix it.