Clay is powerful. Nobody disputes that. But after watching $700 disappear in my first two weeks (mostly while figuring out how the platform worked) I went looking for alternatives.
What I found surprised me. The tools getting the most attention aren't always the best fit, especially if you're budget-conscious or don't have a dedicated ops person to manage complex workflows. Some Clay alternatives cost 4-5x less for the same enrichments. Others skip the learning curve entirely.
This guide covers the best Clay alternatives based on hands-on testing, verified pricing, and real user feedback. I'll be direct about what each tool does well and where it falls short.
Why People Leave Clay
Before diving into alternatives, it helps to understand what drives people away from Clay in the first place. Based on analysis of hundreds of user reviews and community discussions, the complaints cluster around a few key areas.
The credit system creates anxiety. Clay charges credits for every action, successful or not. Run a test workflow? Credits gone. Try to understand a feature? More credits. One VP of Growth put it bluntly: every sales manager he knows burns through credits just trying to learn the interface. Users consistently report spending $500-800 in credits before they even understand what they're doing.
The learning curve is steep. Clay positions itself as a tool for "GTM engineers," not typical sales reps. You need comfort with complex tables, API keys, and enrichment waterfalls to get full value. Multiple users describe feeling overwhelmed by the complexity, with some calling it a tool that requires weeks to understand.
Pricing scales quickly. Clay's Starter plan runs $149/month for 2,000 credits. Sounds reasonable until you realize that enriching 1,000 emails can consume 2,000-5,000 credits depending on your providers. The $800/month Pro plan becomes necessary the moment you want basic CRM integrations.
Data accuracy varies. When enrichments fail or return wrong numbers, you still burn credits. Some users report having to manually verify everything, which defeats the purpose of automation.
If these pain points resonate, keep reading. The alternatives below address most of them directly.
Clay Alternatives at a Glance
Tool
Best For
Prices
Key Differentiator
Tables.so
Non-technical users + accuracy (worldwide)
$18 /1,000 emails
$20/ 100 phone numbers
Exceptionally high data quality, No learning curve, fast setup
Apollo.io
All-in-one prospecting + outreach
$25 /1,000 emails
$20 /100 phone numbers
Huge database, email sequences included
Freckle.io
Non-technical users
$40 /1,000 emails
$20 /100 phone numbers
No learning curve, fast setup
FullEnrich
Waterfall enrichment fans
$55 /1,000 emails
$55 /100 phone numbers
Multiple providers, pay-per-success
Lusha
European data needs
$113 /1,000 emails
$57 /100 phone numbers
GDPR-compliant, Chrome extension
Cognism
Enterprise with EMEA focus
Custom pricing
Phone-verified data, intent signals
Persana AI
AI-powered personalization
$38 /1,000 emails
$38 /100 phone numbers
AI research and email writing
Alternatives Pricing Comparison
1. Tables.so
Tables.so takes direct aim at Clay's three biggest weaknesses: pricing complexity, steep learning curves, and inconsistent data quality. It's built for people who want to source and enrich leads without becoming spreadsheet engineers or second-guessing every result.
What it does: Tables.so combines lead sourcing and enrichment in one simple interface. You can build targeted lead lists, enrich them with emails and phone numbers, and export everything without navigating complex workflows or burning credits on failed lookups.
The pricing difference is dramatic. Where Clay charges roughly $75 to enrich 1,000 emails on their Starter plan, Tables.so does the same for about $18. Phone numbers show an even bigger gap: approximately $140 on Clay versus $20 on Tables.so for 100 numbers. Across most enrichment types, Tables.so runs 4-5x cheaper.
Data quality sets Tables.so apart from budget alternatives. Lower cost doesn't mean lower accuracy here. Tables.so maintains exceptionally high data quality standards, delivering verified contact information that rivals or beats more expensive platforms. Users consistently report high match rates and accurate results, meaning less time spent on manual verification and more time actually selling. The platform prioritizes data freshness and validation, so you're not paying for outdated or incorrect information.
Simplicity is the other selling point. There's no credit system to decode, no waterfall configurations to build, no API keys to manage. If Clay makes you feel like you need an engineering degree, Tables.so is the antidote.
Pros:
- Transparent pricing without credit anxiety
- Exceptionally high data quality and accuracy
- Clean, simple interface anyone can use
- Combines sourcing and enrichment in one tool
- Significantly lower cost per enrichment
- No credits wasted on failed lookups
Cons:
- Fewer integrations than established players
- Less flexibility for complex workflows
- Newer platform with smaller user base
Best for: Startups, small sales teams, and anyone who's been burned by Clay's credit consumption or frustrated by inaccurate data from budget tools. If you need straightforward lead enrichment with reliable accuracy and without the complexity tax, Tables.so delivers on both fronts.
Pricing: Approximately $18 per 1,000 email enrichments, $20 per 100 phone numbers. Dramatically lower than Clay across the board.
2. Apollo.io
Apollo has become the default recommendation for teams that want prospecting, enrichment, and outreach in one tool. Its database includes over 200 million contacts, and the platform handles everything from finding leads to sending email sequences.
What sets Apollo apart is scope. You're not just getting enrichment. You're getting a full sales engagement platform. Build lists, enrich them, create email sequences, track engagement, and manage deals, all without switching tools.
The database is massive. With 200+ million contacts across 60+ million companies, Apollo covers most B2B prospecting needs. The data quality generally holds up well, though some users report occasional issues with outdated information.
Pros:
- All-in-one platform reduces tool sprawl
- Large database with good coverage
- Email sequences and automation included
- Strong free tier for testing
Cons:
- Interface can feel slow at times
- Data accuracy inconsistent for some regions
- Credit limits on lower plans
Best for: Teams that want to consolidate their tech stack. If you're currently using separate tools for prospecting, enrichment, and outreach, Apollo can replace all three.
Pricing: Free plan available. Paid plans start at $49/month (Basic) with 900 credits, scaling to $99/month (Professional) for additional features and credits.
3. Freckle.io
Freckle positions itself as "Clay for people who don't want to learn Clay." It automates enrichment research and data cleanup without requiring you to understand complex workflows or manage API configurations.
The pitch is simplicity. Upload your list, tell Freckle what you need, and let it handle the enrichment. No waterfall configurations, no credit calculations, no technical overhead. Teams report getting set up in minutes rather than weeks.
Lightweight but capable. Freckle won't match Clay's flexibility for power users building custom workflows. But if your needs are straightforward (enrich leads, clean up data, export results) it handles those tasks without friction.
Pros:
- Near-zero learning curve
- Fast setup and results
- Good for small teams and solopreneurs
- Handles data cleanup automatically
Cons:
- Less powerful than Clay for complex use cases
- Fewer data sources and providers
- Limited customization options
Best for: Solo operators, small teams, and anyone who tried Clay and felt overwhelmed. If you want enrichment that just works, Freckle delivers without the complexity.
Pricing: Plans start around $99/month. Contact for specific pricing based on volume.
4. FullEnrich.com
FullEnrich focuses specifically on what many consider Clay's killer feature: waterfall enrichment across multiple data providers. It checks multiple sources sequentially, stopping when it finds valid data.
The waterfall approach maximizes coverage. Instead of relying on a single provider, FullEnrich queries multiple sources in order. If the first provider doesn't have an email, it checks the second, then the third. This typically yields higher match rates than single-source enrichment.
Pay-per-success pricing appeals to many users. Unlike Clay, where you burn credits even on failed lookups, FullEnrich's model means you're paying for results. No more watching credits disappear on dead ends.
Pros:
- True waterfall enrichment across providers
- Pay-per-success reduces waste
- Good match rates from multiple sources
- More predictable costs
Cons:
- Narrower focus than full platforms
- Fewer features beyond enrichment
- Smaller ecosystem of integrations
Best for: Teams that specifically want waterfall enrichment without building complex Clay workflows. If maximizing match rates is your priority, FullEnrich delivers.
Pricing: Plans start at $29/month. Credit costs vary by enrichment type and volume.
5. Lusha.com
Lusha has carved out a strong position for teams prospecting in Europe. Its database emphasizes GDPR compliance, and coverage in EU markets often exceeds American competitors.
European focus is the differentiator. Where many US-based tools struggle with EU data, Lusha maintains strong coverage across European markets. The platform is built with GDPR and CCPA compliance in mind.
The Chrome extension is useful. Lusha's extension lets you enrich contacts while browsing LinkedIn, pulling data on the fly without switching to a separate tool. It's particularly useful for quick, ad-hoc enrichment.
Pros:
- Strong European data coverage
- GDPR and CCPA compliant
- Useful Chrome extension
- Free tier available for testing
Cons:
- Less comprehensive for US markets
- Limited beyond basic enrichment
- Can get expensive at scale
Best for: Teams doing significant prospecting in European markets. If GDPR compliance and EU coverage are priorities, Lusha deserves consideration.
Pricing: Free plan available with limited credits. Paid plans start at $49/month (Pro) and $79/month (Premium).
6. Cognism.com
Cognism targets larger organizations, particularly those focused on European markets. Its phone-verified data and intent signals appeal to teams willing to pay premium prices for premium quality.
Phone-verified data stands out. Cognism's "Diamond Data" contacts go through human verification, which typically means higher connect rates on cold calls. Teams report significant improvements in call success compared to other providers.
Intent data adds targeting. Beyond basic enrichment, Cognism provides signals about which accounts are actively researching solutions like yours. This helps prioritize outreach to warmer prospects.
Pros:
- High-quality phone-verified data
- Strong EMEA coverage
- Intent signals for prioritization
- Enterprise-grade compliance
Cons:
- Premium pricing
- Requires sales conversation for pricing
- Overkill for smaller teams
Best for: Enterprise sales teams with budget for premium data, especially those targeting European markets. If call connect rates matter and you can afford the investment, Cognism delivers.
Pricing: Custom pricing based on requirements. Expect enterprise-level costs.
7. Persana AI
Persana takes a different approach, using AI to automate the research and personalization that typically happens after enrichment. It's less about finding data and more about making that data actionable.
AI handles the research. Rather than just returning firmographic data, Persana researches prospects and generates insights you can use in outreach. It's trying to replace the manual research step that happens between getting a lead and writing an email.
Automated personalization appeals to some. The platform can generate personalized email copy based on its research. Quality varies, but for teams doing high-volume outreach, the time savings add up.
Pros:
- AI research beyond basic enrichment
- Automated personalization
- Time savings on manual research
- Good for high-volume prospecting
Cons:
- AI quality can be inconsistent
- Different use case than traditional enrichment
- Less control over data sources
Best for: Teams doing high-volume outreach who want to automate research and personalization. If the bottleneck is crafting relevant messages rather than finding data, Persana addresses that.
Pricing: Plans start around $85/month.
How to Choose the Right Clay Alternative
The best choice depends on your specific situation. Here's a framework for deciding:
Choose Tables.so if: Budget matters, data quality matters, and you want simplicity. The 4-5x cost savings add up quickly, and the straightforward interface means you're enriching leads on day one instead of spending weeks learning the platform. Unlike other budget options, you won't sacrifice accuracy for affordability.
Choose Apollo.io if: You want to consolidate tools. Apollo replaces separate prospecting, enrichment, and outreach tools with one platform. The database is large enough for most B2B needs.
Choose Freckle.io if: You tried Clay and felt overwhelmed. Freckle delivers enrichment without the complexity, letting you focus on selling instead of configuring workflows.
Choose FullEnrich if: Waterfall enrichment is your priority. The pay-per-success model and multi-provider approach maximize match rates while minimizing waste.
Choose Lusha if: You're prospecting in Europe. GDPR compliance and strong EU coverage make it the obvious choice for European markets.
Choose Cognism if: You have enterprise budget and need premium phone data. The human verification and intent signals justify the higher cost for teams where call success rates matter.
Choose Persana AI if: Research and personalization are your bottleneck. The AI-powered approach addresses a different problem than traditional enrichment.
Clay Still Makes Sense Sometimes
To be fair to Clay, it remains the most powerful option for teams with complex requirements. If you need highly customized workflows, dozens of integrations, and granular control over every step, Clay's flexibility is unmatched.
Clay works well for:
- GTM engineers who enjoy building complex automations
- Teams with dedicated ops resources to manage workflows
- Use cases requiring unusual data combinations
- Organizations already comfortable with the credit system
The point isn't that Clay is bad. It's that it's not right for everyone. Most teams don't need that level of complexity, and simpler alternatives often deliver better ROI.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the cheapest Clay alternative?
Tables.so offers the lowest per-enrichment pricing at roughly $18 per 1,000 emails compared to Clay's $75+ for the same volume. Importantly, Tables.so maintains high data quality at this price point, so you're not trading accuracy for savings. Lusha and Apollo also offer free tiers for testing before committing.
Is Clay worth the price?
For teams with complex workflow needs and dedicated ops resources, Clay's flexibility justifies the cost. For most small to mid-sized teams, simpler and cheaper alternatives deliver similar results with less overhead.
Can I switch from Clay without losing data?
Yes. Most alternatives support CSV import/export. Export your existing data from Clay, then import into your new platform. The transition is typically straightforward.
Which Clay alternative has the best data quality?
Cognism's phone-verified data generally shows the highest connect rates for calls. For email, Tables.so delivers exceptionally high accuracy at a fraction of the cost, while waterfall tools like FullEnrich often achieve better match rates by checking multiple providers.
Do I need technical skills to use Clay alternatives?
Tools like Tables.so and Freckle.io are specifically designed for non-technical users. Apollo and Lusha also have intuitive interfaces that don't require technical background.
What's the biggest difference between Clay and its alternatives?
Complexity. Clay offers maximum flexibility through a system that requires significant learning investment. Most alternatives trade some flexibility for simplicity and faster time-to-value.
How do Clay credits work compared to alternative pricing?
Clay charges credits for all enrichment attempts, successful or not. Each action consumes credits at varying rates depending on the provider used. Many alternatives use simpler models: flat per-enrichment pricing or pay-per-success approaches that only charge when data is found.