# Clay vs Apollo vs Cognism pricing and European data checks

Canonical URL: https://industrycontents.com/clay-vs-apollo-european-outbound/
Language: en-GB
Published: 2026-10-14
Structure updated: 2026-10-25

> Dated article snapshot. Canonical web page may receive later updates. Vendor figures retain their stated source-check dates. Illustrations are not product benchmarks.

Published: 2026-10-14 · Structure updated: 2026-10-25. Vendor prices and source checks retain the dates stated below.

## Quick answer

Clay combines enrichment sources and workflow orchestration; Apollo combines prospecting data with sales tools; Cognism sells prospecting and enrichment through quoted packages. Compare total cost per usable contact for the same countries, roles and required fields.

## Key terms

**Waterfall enrichment**: Waterfall enrichment is a sequence of data-provider lookups used to fill missing contact or company fields.

**Usable contact**: Usable contact is a unique, relevant record that passes the team’s verification and suppression checks.

**Suppression**: Suppression is excluding records that must not be used in outreach under the team’s rules.

## In brief

Apollo's earlier public seat-and-credit figures allow an illustrative capacity calculation, but they do not establish today's price per usable contact. Clay publishes monthly plan prices and lower figures that need a billing-cycle check, and it bills in actions and data credits that depend on which providers a workflow calls. Cognism requires a sales quote. On GDPR, Clay publishes a processing agreement that makes it a processor for your data and a separate controller for data it obtains from providers. Apollo tells customers they are responsible for configuring it. Cognism's compliance page describes independent-controller roles and processing for customer enrichment; those duties need review alongside price.

## Clay vs Apollo vs Cognism, plans and billing units

Clay's [pricing page](https://www.clay.com/pricing) lists a Free plan with 500 actions and 100 data credits, Launch at $167 a month, Growth at $446 and a custom Enterprise plan. Its FAQ gives $185 for Launch and $495 for Growth. In an 18 October follow-up, Clay's billing documentation explicitly labels $185 and $495 as monthly starting prices. Confirm the billing cycle and capacity in [Clay’s billing documentation](https://university.clay.com/docs/plans-and-billing). Clay says waterfall enrichment, which tries one provider after another until it finds a result, is on every plan across more than 150 providers, and that it doesn't charge when nothing is returned. Actions don't roll over, and the page gives conflicting rollover figures for data credits.

Apollo bills per seat. Our [Apollo vs Hunter vs Snov.io vs Lusha comparison](/apollo-vs-hunter/) recorded Basic at $49, Professional at $79 and Organization at $119 per seat per month on annual billing, with 30,000, 48,000 and 72,000 credits per seat per year pooled across the team. Credits expire at the end of the billing cycle. One credit buys an email, eight buy a phone number.

Cognism's [pricing page](https://www.cognism.com/pricing) shows Standard and Pro packages, a CRM Enrichment product and a Data as a Service option, and directs buyers to a personalised quote. It states that one credit is one revealed contact, that viewing a contact already revealed costs nothing, and that Pro adds intent data and on demand mobile verification.

| Comparison | Clay | Apollo | Cognism |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Billing unit | Actions and data credits per plan | Per seat, with pooled yearly credits | Seats with credits per seat, by quote |
| Published price | Launch $167 or $185, Growth $446 or $495, depending on where on the page you look | $49, $79 and $119 per seat per month, annual billing (IC page) | None published |
| What a credit buys | Depends on the provider each step calls. Nothing is charged if nothing is returned, Clay says | 1 per email, 8 per phone number | 1 per revealed contact |
| Where the data comes from | 150+ third party providers, according to Clay, plus the open web | A database it holds, which it cites at 240M contacts. Sources not described on the GDPR page we read | Not described on the pricing page |
| Published GDPR terms | Public data processing agreement with standard contractual clauses | GDPR guidance article and a linked processing addendum | Compliance page describes independent controllers and enrichment processing; reviewed 18 October 2026 |

Caption: Three ways to pay for the same list. The table sets out Comparison, Clay, Apollo, Cognism.

Vendor claims in the table are self reported and weren't independently verified. Apollo prices are from our earlier comparison, checked 14 October 2026.

## Cost per usable email, calculation and assumptions

Apollo’s earlier allowance figures describe capacity, not a guaranteed current price per usable email.

Using the earlier recorded Apollo Basic figures, $49 a month and 30,000 annual credits give a monthly-equivalent capacity of 2,500 credits. That is $0.0196 per credit only if the entire allowance is used. The earlier one-credit email rule would make it the same amount per revealed email; it is not a current guaranteed email rate. Apollo's pricing page rechecked 25 October now directs buyers to account-specific credit charges, and its plan-price cards were not available in our retrieval.

Clay can't be priced the same way because the cost per row depends on the providers in the waterfall and the credits each one uses, which the pricing page doesn't list. Cognism can't be priced without a quote. The usable cost is total attributable spend divided by unique, relevant contacts that pass your verification and suppression checks. Pull the same 200 target companies from each tool, verify the results and divide, using the proposed method in our earlier cost per usable contact method. Industry Contents hasn't run that test on Clay or Cognism.

## Define a usable contact

Define a usable contact before opening a trial. For this comparison, that means a unique person at a target account, still in the relevant role, with the required contact field verified and eligible under your team's outreach and suppression rules. A valid-looking address alone does not pass the test.

| Stage | Contacts remaining | Reason |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Returned records | 1,000 | Starting sample |
| Remove 150 duplicates | 850 | Already in the CRM or repeated in the export |
| Remove 100 wrong-role or departed contacts | 750 | Not a current target |
| Remove 150 verification or suppression failures | 600 | Fails the agreed acceptance rule |

Caption: Invented sample, not a vendor benchmark. Each exclusion is counted once, in order; categories do not overlap.

At an assumed $200 total spend, the headline cost is $0.20 per returned record. With 600 accepted contacts, it becomes about $0.33 per usable contact. Add $60 of cleanup time and it becomes about $0.43. A database can look inexpensive until somebody has to clean the spreadsheet.

### Unused contact capacity

Using the earlier $49 Apollo example, 2,000 usable emails would mean $0.0245 each before other costs. If the same subscription produces only 200 usable emails that month, the allocation is $0.245 each. Both calculations use the same fee. Neither is a new credit rate, and annual billing still requires the annual commitment.

## When two tools help

A second enrichment tool is useful only when the additional usable contacts justify the extra subscription and operating work.

A second source should fill a measured gap. Start with your existing database, remove contacts already accepted, then enrich only the unresolved records. Compare incremental usable contacts against the extra subscription, data charges, verification and workflow maintenance. Counting the same person twice is not better coverage.

For an invented example, suppose an additional workflow costs $185 a month and finds 250 usable contacts your existing source missed. That is $0.74 per incremental contact before setup. Add two hours of maintenance at an assumed $50 an hour and it becomes $1.14. If it finds only 50 extra contacts, the same $285 costs $5.70 each. These are hypothetical inputs, not Clay performance figures.

Keep waterfall steps conditional: stop once the required field passes your acceptance test. Record the provider, result date and cost for each returned field. Clay's billing docs distinguish orchestration Actions from purchased Data Credits; using an external provider account does not justify assuming the workflow has no orchestration cost.

## Run a fair pilot

- Use the same 200 target companies. Split the sample by country, company size and target role before looking at results.

- Set an equal rule for how many people to find per company. Score the required field separately: email coverage and phone coverage are different tests.

- Deduplicate against the same CRM snapshot and apply the same verification and suppression process to every source.

- Record no-result cases, wrong roles, stale contacts, manual correction time and credits consumed. Keep returns separate from accepted contacts.

- Test exporting and updating records, including a deletion or suppression request, without launching a live campaign just to score coverage.

A 200-company sample can expose obvious gaps; it cannot establish accuracy across Europe. Report each country and role separately, including sample sizes. A strong overall score can hide a weak result in the market you need.

## Price the contract

For Cognism, request the total commitment, seat count, credit allocation, top-up price, export and API rights, renewal terms and treatment of job changes. Its pricing FAQ says a redeemed record remains usable during the contract and can use another credit after a job change. Confirm how that applies to your prospecting or enrichment package.

For Apollo, check the whole team's tier: its current pricing FAQ says seats on one account cannot mix plan levels. For Clay, confirm Actions, Data Credits, external provider subscriptions and rollover separately. Ask each vendor to price the same workload rather than sending three different proposals to a spreadsheet and hoping they get along.

## The Kaspr decision and what it asks of buyers

In December 2024 the French regulator CNIL fined Kaspr €240,000. According to the [CNIL's announcement](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000), the decision dated 5 December 2024 found that Kaspr's Chrome extension collected contact details that LinkedIn users had restricted to their first and second degree connections, kept data for five years with automatic renewal, told people about the collection late and in English only, and gave generic answers when people asked where their data came from. The database held about 160 million contacts.

Kaspr isn't one of the three tools here, and nothing we read says Clay, Apollo or Cognism collect data that way. The decision illustrates the regulator's test. The regulator looked at the source of each contact, the visibility settings the person had chosen, how long the data was held and whether the vendor could say where it came from. A buyer who can't answer those questions about a vendor's data has no ready reply when a prospect writes asking where the address came from. In our reading, that is the question to put to every vendor in this comparison.

## European outbound data, what the vendor documents say

Clay's [data processing agreement](https://www.clay.com/dpa) is public. It names Clay a processor for customer personal data, with the customer as controller. For what it calls Proprietary Data, defined as the subset of marketplace data Clay obtains from third party providers, it says both parties are separate and independent controllers. In practice that gives a buyer using provider data a controller's duties alongside Clay's, including the notice and access duties the Kaspr decision turned on. The agreement incorporates standard contractual clauses and a UK addendum for transfers, and lets Clay engage sub-processors with a right for the customer to object to new ones.

Apollo's [GDPR overview](https://knowledge.apollo.io/hc/en-us/articles/4409141087757-General-Data-Protection-Regulation%E2%80%91GDPR%E2%80%91Overview) reads as guidance for the customer. It says Apollo "can't advise whether GDPR applies to your business" and that "you're responsible for configuring Apollo according to your organization's privacy requirements." It describes settings that block prospecting, emailing and tracking for people located in the EU, but only when Apollo can determine location. A removal request deletes the person from Apollo's database and doesn't remove contacts already saved to your workspace, so your team has to delete them. The page doesn't name a lawful basis or describe where the data comes from.

Cognism's compliance page, reviewed 18 October 2026, describes independent-controller roles for its general service and a processor role for customer data supplied for enrichment. It also describes notice and suppression processes. These are vendor statements, not an independent compliance finding. Read the agreement for your specific use. Source: [Cognism compliance documentation](https://www.cognism.com/compliance).

## The case for Apollo alone

A single Apollo seat can be the right answer. A team with a narrow list of known accounts, one or two senders and a CRM it already trusts doesn't need a waterfall, and the Apollo plans give sequences, a dialer and a deliverability suite for $49 to $119 a seat. The cost is that the data protection work sits with you, because the guidance puts configuration and removal handling on the customer. For a few hundred contacts in two countries that is manageable. For tens of thousands across five, it needs an owner.

## Limits of this comparison

This comparison does not establish measured coverage, accuracy or bounce rates for Clay, Apollo or Cognism.

We measured no coverage, accuracy or bounce rate for any of the three, so we can't say which finds more usable addresses in Germany, France or the Nordics. The original Clay pricing page showed different amounts in different sections. Clay's billing documentation checked 18 October 2026 explicitly lists monthly Launch from $185 and Growth from $495; the lower figures require a billing-cycle and capacity check. The original review read Cognism's pricing page only; the 18 October update also reviewed its compliance page. The Kaspr decision concerns a different vendor and a different collection method. And the vendors can change terms, so the processing agreements should be read in full by whoever signs them. This isn't legal advice.

## Matching each tool to the buyer

A team of two with a defined account list should price Apollo first and name who handles removal requests. A revenue operations lead building enrichment across several countries should price Clay with a test run, then read the provider list and the controller clause with legal, because that clause is where the buyer's duties grow. An enterprise team with a legal review and a Europe heavy list should ask Cognism for a quote and its compliance documents, and compare them with Apollo's seat price and Clay's agreement. Apollo has the lowest listed entry price in this snapshot, but these products do not sell equivalent workloads.

## Method

Industry Contents read Clay's pricing page and data processing agreement, Cognism's pricing page, Apollo's GDPR overview and the CNIL announcement on 14 October 2026. An 18 October update checked Clay's billing documentation and Cognism's compliance page. Apollo prices come from our earlier comparison, which read Apollo's pricing page the same day. We ran none of the tools, tested no data and didn't contact the vendors. The contact-quality, incremental-coverage and labour calculations added on 25 October are invented examples, not measured vendor results. That update rechecked the three pricing pages and Clay billing documentation. Apollo plan-price cards were unavailable in the retrieved page; earlier seat prices remain dated snapshots. Privacy and contract readings retain their earlier review dates.

## Frequently asked questions

### Is Clay cheaper than Apollo?

There is no universal winner. Compare the valid plan and total cost per usable contact for the same workload. Clay uses Actions and Data Credits; Apollo combines seats with pooled credits. Earlier listed entry prices alone do not establish the cheaper result.

### Is Apollo GDPR compliant?

Apollo's GDPR article says it supports customers' compliance and that customers are responsible for configuring it. It describes EU settings and removal handling but doesn't name a lawful basis or its data sources on that page.

### Does Clay replace Apollo?

They can overlap or work together. Test whether Clay supplies the sourcing, enrichment and downstream workflow you need, or adds usable contacts your existing database misses. Do not assume its provider integrations replace every Apollo feature or subscription.

### Does Cognism publish its prices?

No. Its pricing page describes Standard and Pro packages and directs buyers to a personalised quote. Ask for the seat minimum and included credits in writing.

### What should a trial measure?

Measure usable, verified contacts for your target market after deduplication. Include enrichment, failed lookups, seats and verification in the total. A cheaper credit is not necessarily a cheaper usable contact.

[Compare email lookup and verification costs](/apollo-vs-hunter/). Use the dated sources in this article for price context; the comparison method is an editorial framework, not a hands-on product benchmark.

If the next step after enrichment is an automated sales approach, our [AI sales agent comparison](https://industrycontents.com/aisdr-vs-artisan/) covers the separate agent and contact bill. [Zero’s CRM case](https://industrycontents.com/zero-ai-crm-customer-stories/) examines the review work left after records are automated.

Commercial mechanics rechecked 25 October 2026: [Clay pricing](https://www.clay.com/pricing) and [billing docs](https://university.clay.com/docs/plans-and-billing), [Apollo pricing FAQ](https://www.apollo.io/pricing), and [Cognism pricing and credit rules](https://www.cognism.com/pricing). Cognism remains quote-based. No product trial or accuracy benchmark was performed.

## Sources

- [Clay pricing](https://www.clay.com/pricing) and [Clay data processing agreement](https://www.clay.com/dpa), checked 14 October 2026.

- [Apollo GDPR overview](https://knowledge.apollo.io/hc/en-us/articles/4409141087757-General-Data-Protection-Regulation%E2%80%91GDPR%E2%80%91Overview) and [Apollo pricing](https://www.apollo.io/pricing), checked 14 October 2026.

- [Cognism pricing](https://www.cognism.com/pricing), checked 14 October 2026.

- CNIL, [Data scraping, KASPR fined €240,000](https://www.cnil.fr/en/data-scraping-kaspr-fined-eu240000).

IC Lab · AI Agent Pricing Tracker

Take the pricing rows into your budget.

Compare source-linked rows in the tracker. [Open the tracker and find the CSV export](/ic-lab/ai-agent-pricing-tracker/). The tracker offers a CSV export with a TalkHead signup. TalkHead is our weekly newsletter on AI in business.

**Related** [All comparisons](/ic-lab/compare/) · Apollo vs Hunter vs Snov.io vs Lusha · [Instantly vs Smartlead](/instantly-vs-smartlead/) · [AI agent privacy and approval checklist](/guides/ai-agent-privacy-approval-checklist/) · AI Agent Pricing Tracker