Bad data costs revenue teams an average of 30% of their pipeline each year through misrouted leads, bounced emails, and wasted outreach on stale contacts. Data enrichment tools solve this, but picking the wrong one wastes budget and creates a false sense of data confidence. Here is how the four leading platforms stack up.
Feature Comparison Matrix¶
| Feature | ZoomInfo | Clearbit | Apollo | Clay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contact database size | 260M+ profiles | 40M+ profiles | 270M+ profiles | Aggregates 50+ providers |
| Real-time enrichment | Yes | Yes (Reveal API) | Yes | Yes |
| CRM integration | Salesforce, HubSpot native | Salesforce, HubSpot native | Salesforce, HubSpot native | Salesforce, HubSpot via sync |
| Intent data | Included (higher tiers) | Via partnerships | Basic signals | Via provider integrations |
| Sequencing/outreach | Engage add-on | No | Built-in | No |
| Pricing model | Annual contract, seat-based | Annual contract, API-based | Freemium + paid tiers | Credits-based |
| Starting price | ~$15,000/year | ~$12,000/year | Free tier; paid from $49/mo | From $149/month |
ZoomInfo: The Enterprise Standard¶
ZoomInfo remains the default choice for enterprise RevOps teams with large sales organizations. Its strengths include:
- Deepest direct-dial coverage for North American contacts
- Intent data powered by Bidstream and proprietary sources
- Org chart mapping that helps reps identify buying committees
- Engage module for built-in outreach sequencing
Where it falls short: Pricing is opaque and expensive - most mid-market teams pay $25,000-$60,000 annually. Data quality outside North America drops noticeably. The platform can feel bloated if you only need basic enrichment.
Clearbit: Best for Real-Time Inbound¶
Clearbit (now part of HubSpot) excels at real-time website visitor identification and form enrichment. When a lead fills out a form with just an email address, Clearbit can append company size, industry, revenue range, and tech stack in milliseconds.
Best use cases:
- Shortening inbound forms by auto-filling fields
- Lead scoring based on firmographic data
- Personalizing website experiences by company attributes
Limitation: Clearbit’s database is smaller than ZoomInfo’s or Apollo’s, which means lower match rates for outbound prospecting.
Apollo: The All-in-One Challenger¶
Apollo has aggressively closed the gap by combining enrichment, prospecting, and outreach sequencing into a single platform at a fraction of the cost.
- Free tier includes 10,000 email credits per month - enough for early-stage teams
- Buyer intent signals available on paid plans
- Built-in sequencer eliminates the need for a separate outbound tool
RevOps consideration: Apollo’s data quality has improved significantly since 2024, but enterprise teams should still validate match rates against their ICP before committing.
Limitation: Native CRM sync can be finicky with complex Salesforce configurations. Plan for integration testing.
Clay: The Waterfall Approach¶
Clay takes a fundamentally different approach. Instead of maintaining its own database, Clay lets you build enrichment workflows that pull from 50+ data providers in sequence - if Provider A misses a field, it falls through to Provider B.
Why RevOps teams love Clay:
- Maximum coverage by waterfalling across ZoomInfo, Apollo, Clearbit, and more
- Spreadsheet-like interface that non-technical users can build in
- AI-powered data cleaning and formatting
Limitation: Credits can burn quickly on large enrichment jobs. Costs escalate fast if you are not careful with workflow design.
How to Choose¶
| If your priority is… | Choose… |
|---|---|
| Enterprise-grade direct dials and intent | ZoomInfo |
| Real-time inbound enrichment and HubSpot-native workflow | Clearbit |
| All-in-one prospecting on a budget | Apollo |
| Maximum coverage across multiple providers | Clay |
Key Takeaways¶
- No single enrichment tool covers every use case - match your choice to your primary workflow (inbound vs. outbound)
- Apollo offers the best value for budget-conscious teams that also need outbound sequencing
- Clay’s waterfall approach maximizes match rates but requires careful credit management
- Validate data quality against your specific ICP before signing an annual contract