Lead Generation
Clay
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Clay Labs, Inc. (Clay) · www.clay.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Clay at a glance
- Vendor
- Clay Labs, Inc. (Clay)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Clay 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Clay is a lead-generation platform built on multi-provider enrichment: 75+ tools waterfalled together, billed only when a result is found. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Clay is a lead-generation platform built on multi-provider enrichment: 75+ tools waterfalled together, billed only when a result is found. The scoring puts its clear strength in prospecting compliance, where the range runs 8 to 8 — DNC screening through the partner Meer covers Germany's Robinsonliste, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Belgium and Australia plus the US national and nine state registries, scrub guidance sits at 14 to 28 days, and opt-outs synced from CRM propagate into downstream workflows and connected ad accounts. The weakest areas are sovereignty, scored 1-2, and pricing transparency, scored 2 across the range: the contracting entity and controller is Clay Labs Inc. of 111 W 19th Street, New York, and we found no public information on hosting, data residency, subprocessors or an EU representative, while the pages show a free start with no credit card, and we found no public information on tier prices, seat costs or credit expiry. Data coverage spread widest, 2 to 4, on per-country figures; the only numbers are a customer story's 80% coverage and less than ~1 cent per enrichment.
Speaks for it
- DNC screening through the partner Meer covers Germany's Robinsonliste, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Australia and the US national registry plus nine state registries.
- Scrub guidance directs re-screening at least every 28 days, with 14 days recommended for extra precaution.
- Opt-out data from CRM and sales engagement tools syncs back into Clay and propagates to downstream workflows, reaching connected ad accounts on the next scheduled sync.
- Waterfall enrichment across 75+ providers charges only once a result is found, at disclosed wholesale rates.
- A documented HTTP API supports GET, POST, PUT and DELETE with pagination up to 50,000 rows and encrypted workspace-level credentials.
Held against it
- The contracting entity and controller is Clay Labs Inc. of 111 W 19th Street, New York, and we found no public information on hosting, data residency, a subprocessor list or an EU representative.
- We found no public information on tier prices, credit allowances, seat costs or credit expiry, so an annual invoice cannot be computed.
- The only coverage figures are a customer story's 80% coverage and less than ~1 cent per enrichment; we found no public information on per-country numbers for Germany, Austria or Switzerland.
- We found no public information on a consent position for the tracking script, a cookieless option, or how anonymous visitor identification works.
- The EU guidance puts documenting a lawful basis on the buyer, and we found no public information on Clay's own basis for people in the database or an Art. 14 notification practice.
Best for
- You run outbound calling in Germany, the UK, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Australia or the US and want DNC screening and scrub cadence inside the workflow.
- You centralize opt-out data in a CRM or sales engagement tool and need it to propagate into every downstream enrichment and ad sync.
- You want to compare providers across a 75+-tool waterfall and pay only when an enrichment returns a result.
- You build US-based ad audiences from vendor-sourced data, which the captured pages explicitly allow.
Avoid if
- You need an EU contracting entity or confirmed EU data residency — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must budget against published tier prices — the pricing shown is usage-based: "the price of Clay depends entirely on the enrichment tools you choose to use."
- You build non-Google/Bing ad audiences outside the US from Clay-sourced contacts — the captured pages include Clay-sourced contacts only when the country is the US or blank.
- You deploy website tracking in Germany — the captured pages describe what the script collects (pages visited, time spent, traffic sources) but we found no public information on a consent position or a cookieless option.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Coverage, accuracy & freshness | 1.5 of 5 |
| Data sources & lawful basis | 2 of 5 |
| Visitor identification & intent signals | 1.5 of 5 |
| Prospecting workflow & outreach rules | 4 of 5 |
| CRM sync, enrichment & export | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
Coverage, accuracy & freshness
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How much of the target market the database actually covers — judged on DACH and EU coverage as much as North American — and what the vendor documents about verification and refresh, because accuracy claims cannot be checked from outside.
0 — No stated coverage, no refresh cadence, no verification method; accuracy asserted as a percentage with nothing behind it.
3 — Headline record counts for the whole database, thin or unstated European coverage, and no description of how often records are re-verified.
5 — Coverage stated per country or region including DACH, email verification described, a stated refresh cadence, and firmographics beyond name and domain.
8 — Coverage broken down by country, industry and data type (email, direct dial, mobile), verification method and refresh cadence documented, company data drawn from official registers where available, and a bounce or credit-back guarantee with stated terms.
10 — The vendor is accountable for its data: per-country coverage and accuracy methodology published, every field carrying a last-verified date visible to the user, register-sourced company data, and credit-back terms that make inaccuracy the vendor's cost rather than the buyer's.
The SDR Team Lead
Coverage is sold as a waterfall across 75+ enrichment tools where you pick the best ones per region, backed by a customer story of 80 percent coverage at under about a cent per enrichment versus a 30 percent baseline — figures with no method behind them. I found no public information on per-country numbers including DACH, refresh cadence, or credit-back terms when data is wrong, though verified work emails and French business registry data are described for CRM enrichment. 3 4 5 12
The RevOps Manager
Coverage is pitched as 75+ waterfalled enrichment tools with a customer claim of 80% coverage against a 30% ZoomInfo baseline, but I found no public information on per-country coverage for DACH, a re-verification cadence, or any accuracy methodology behind the percentages. The only register-sourced detail I could see is French business registry data. 3 4 12
The Data Protection Officer
Coverage is presented as marketing arithmetic — "often double or triple data coverage rates" against Zoominfo — resting on 75+ third-party tools whose regional strength is left to the buyer to work out. We found no public information on per-country coverage, verification method, or refresh cadence; the only register-sourced firmographics we could see is French business registry data. 3 4 12
The ABM Marketer
Coverage is sold as a mechanism — 75+ enrichment tools waterfalled so I pay only when one returns a result, with named providers — but I found no per-country numbers telling me how many of my German and Austrian target accounts I could actually enrich. The only figures are a customer story citing 80% coverage at less than ~1 cent per enrichment, and we found no public information on re-verification cadence or credit-back terms for inaccurate data. 3 4 5 12
The DACH Sales Director
Coverage is claimed only as 75+ enrichment tools with "better global or regional coverage" — no figure anywhere for Germany, Austria or Switzerland, and the only register tie-in I found is French business registry data. Verification method, refresh cadence and any accuracy guarantee are absent, while an 80% coverage figure is quoted with nothing behind it. 3 4 12
The Skeptic
Coverage is delegated to 75+ third-party enrichment tools waterfalled together, with the only numbers being a customer anecdote of 80% coverage and "less than ~1 cent per enrichment" — we found no public information on per-country coverage, DACH figures, refresh cadence or verification method. The pay-only-when-a-result-is-found rule puts the cost of a miss on the vendor, which keeps this off the floor. 3 4 5 12
Data sources & lawful basis
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the personal data in the database comes from and on what legal basis it is processed — as evidenced on the vendor's own pages. Covers Art. 6(1)(f) legitimate interest, the Art. 14 notice to the people in the database, and whether they can find, object to and remove their record.
0 — No statement of where contact data comes from or on what legal basis; "GDPR-compliant" asserted without explanation, and no way for a listed person to object.
3 — Sources described in general terms ("public sources", "partners"), legitimate interest named without any balancing, and an opt-out request form as the only route for data subjects.
5 — Source categories named (registers, company websites, contributory networks, licensed partners), legitimate interest stated as the basis for EU records, a dedicated privacy notice for the people in the database, and a self-service opt-out or removal process.
8 — The above plus an Art. 14 notification practice described (people informed when added), contributory or browser-extension collection disclosed as such, a legitimate-interest assessment summarised publicly, and EU records handled differently from US records where the law differs.
10 — Provenance is traceable per record: the source and collection date available for each contact, Art. 14 notices sent and documented, the balancing test published, objections honoured across the whole dataset and suppressed permanently, and no data sourced by scraping behind logins or from contributors' address books without their contacts' knowledge.
The SDR Team Lead
The privacy policy names source categories including consumer data brokers, business partners and publicly accessible sources, and it speaks directly to people whose records sit in Clay's databases, offering an opt-out by email or a do-not-sell button. I found no public information naming legitimate interest as the basis for EU records, a balancing test, Art. 14 notification practice, or a self-service removal process. 2 6
The RevOps Manager
Sources appear only in general terms — consumer data brokers, publicly accessible sources, social networks — and the vendor does tell customers which individual providers data comes from. I found no public information on a legitimate-interest statement for the people in the databases, an Art. 14 notification practice, or a balancing test; data subjects get a do-not-sell button and a Transcend-powered privacy platform as their route out. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy notice names source categories including consumer data brokers, ISPs and public sources, and the vendor says it tells buyers exactly which provider each record came from — genuine provider-level visibility. But we found no public information on the legal basis for the people in the database, no balancing test, and no Art. 14 notification practice; a listed person gets a "do not sell" button and a privacy inbox rather than a documented removal route. 2 4 5
The ABM Marketer
The privacy notice is frank about where records come from — resellers described as consumer data brokers, partners, and publicly accessible sources — and people in the database are acknowledged, given European rights and a Transcend-powered opt-out. But we found no public information stating Clay's own lawful basis for EU records, and the outreach guidance puts the burden of documenting a lawful basis on me as the buyer. 2 9
The DACH Sales Director
The privacy notice names source categories including "Resellers: Consumer data brokers" and public sources, disclosed people can go through the do-not-sell button, privacy email or the Transcend platform, and Clay says it tells you which individual providers your data comes from. But no lawful basis for the database records themselves is stated — the EU page tells the buyer to document their own — and we found no public information on Art. 14 notification, a balancing test, or EU records handled differently in the database. 2 4 9
The Skeptic
The privacy notice names a concrete category list — consumer data brokers, social networks, public sources among them — and openly discloses that user queries expose people's records, which is more than "public sources". But we found no public statement of the lawful basis for EU records, no Art. 14 notification practice, and the only removal routes shown are a "do not sell" button and an email address; provider naming (Hunter, Apollo, SalesNavigator) is a marketplace disclosure, not per-record provenance. 2 4 6
Visitor identification & intent signals
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Identifying companies behind website visits and surfacing buying intent — scored on what is identified (company or person), how the tracking works, and whether the vendor states that its script needs consent under §25 TDDDG and how it behaves without it.
0 — No visitor identification or intent data, or person-level identification of EU visitors with no statement of legal basis.
3 — Reverse-IP company identification with a cookie-setting script, no statement about consent, and match rates claimed without method.
5 — Company-level identification with filters, visit history per company, a stated position that the script requires consent where it sets cookies, and a consent-mode or cookieless option.
8 — Company-level only for EU traffic by design, cookieless operation documented, integration with common consent management platforms, intent topics or page-level signals with the source of third-party intent data named, and alerts routed to owners.
10 — Identification that survives a DPO review: no personal data of visitors stored, the TDDDG and GDPR position published and specific, third-party intent data sourced from a named co-op or panel with its consent basis stated, and scoring on intent that the user can trace back to the underlying visits.
The SDR Team Lead
Website tracking is documented — pages visited, time spent, traffic sources for web intent — and there is an anonymous visitor identification provider page, but the captured pages show no description of how identification works, no statement that the script needs consent, and no cookieless or consent-mode option. Without a consent position I could not put this in front of our DPO. 7 8
The RevOps Manager
Website tracking is documented as collecting pages visited, time spent and traffic sources to understand web intent, with Signals listed among the modules. I found no public information on the identification method, match rates, a consent-mode or cookieless option, or any statement about consent under the German tracking rule (TDDDG). 8 3
The Data Protection Officer
Website tracking is documented to collect pages visited, time spent and traffic sources, and a provider page markets anonymous visitor identification. We found no public statement on the TDDDG consent position, no cookieless or consent-mode option, and nothing on whether identification is company-level only for EU traffic — exactly the script-fire-before-consent question I need answered. 7 8
The ABM Marketer
Website tracking for web intent is documented — pages visited, time spent, traffic sources — and a provider page for anonymous visitor identification points to company-level rather than person-level, which is what I want for my account list. But we found no public information on the identification method, any consent or cookieless statement for the tracking script, the source of third-party intent data, or how the Signals module reaches the account owner while a visit is warm — a module name is not an alert. 3 7 8
The DACH Sales Director
Website tracking is documented as collecting pages visited, time spent and traffic sources to "understand web intent", and a page on anonymous visitor identification exists, but we found no public information on whether identification is company-level, whether the script sets cookies, or any consent position under the German Telecommunications-Telemedia Data Protection Act. For a Mittelstand buyer that silence settles it. 7 8
The Skeptic
Website tracking is described — pages visited, time spent, traffic sources — but the captured pages do not show whether identification is company-level or person-level, and we found no public information on a consent position, the TDDDG question, or any cookieless or consent-mode option. No match rates are claimed, which is honest, but that leaves nothing verifiable either. 2 8
Prospecting workflow & outreach rules
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Search, list building and outreach — and whether the product helps the buyer stay within UWG §7 and the GDPR once the list exists, rather than leaving the legal risk entirely with the customer.
0 — A search box and an export button; nothing on the pages about what the buyer may lawfully do with the contacts.
3 — Filters on firmographics and job title, saved lists, and a terms clause making the customer solely responsible for compliance.
5 — Advanced filters including technographics and triggers, company-level lists and alerts, a global suppression or do-not-contact list, and guidance on cold outreach rules in the main EU markets.
8 — The above plus country-aware handling (for example flagging German contacts where cold calls and emails require consent), phone numbers checked against national do-not-call registers where they exist, and opt-outs from outreach synced back to the database.
10 — Compliance is part of the workflow: outreach channels restricted or flagged per country and contact type by default, suppression shared across the whole account and every export, the Art. 14 notice supported at first contact, and a documented record of how each contact entered the buyer's pipeline.
The SDR Team Lead
This is what I would actually run my team on: DNC screening through the partner Meer covering Germany's Robinsonliste, UK TPS/CTPS, Ireland, Spain, Belgium and the US national registry plus nine state registries, with scrub guidance at every 14 to 28 days, country include/exclude filters in People Search, and opt-out lists synced from CRM back into Clay and propagated to connected ad accounts on the next sync. It stops short of flagging or restricting channels per country by default — the buyer builds the compliance logic with conditional runs — and the pages say the guidance is not legal advice. 9 10
The RevOps Manager
Compliance is genuinely in the workflow: DNC screening through the partner Meer against Germany's Robinsonliste, the UK TPS, Ireland, Spain, Belgium and the US national plus nine state registries with a scrub at least every 28 days, geo filters that can exclude a company DNC list, opt-out lists synced back so downstream workflows respect them, and country-aware handling that keeps Clay-sourced contacts out of non-US ad audiences. What holds it below the top is that I found no public information on Art. 14 support at first contact or a documented record of how each contact entered the pipeline. 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The strongest area by far: DNC screening through partner Meer against the UK, German Robinsonliste, Irish, Spanish, Belgian and Australian registries plus the US national and nine state registries, scrub-frequency guidance of every 14 to 28 days, EU guidance telling buyers to document their lawful basis and warning of directors' personal liability, country filters usable to hold out DNC lists, and opt-outs synced back from CRM and sales tools into all downstream workflows. We found no public information on Art. 14 notice support at first contact or per-country channel restrictions applied by default, which is what keeps this from the top. 9
The ABM Marketer
This is the best-evidenced part of the product: DNC screening through the Meer partner covers Germany's Robinsonliste plus the UK, Ireland, Spain, Belgium and the US national and state registries, with re-scrub guidance at 14 to 28 days, and People Search can include or exclude countries and predefined suppression lists. Opt-outs sync from CRM and sales engagement tools back into Clay and propagate downstream, and "only run if" logic builds compliance into every enrichment step. The screening is a step I configure rather than a default, and we found no public information on notice support at first contact. 9 10
The DACH Sales Director
This is the strong part: screening against Germany's Robinsonliste plus UK, Irish, Spanish, Belgian and US registries through the Meer partner, scrub cadence guidance of 14 to 28 days, geo filters to exclude countries and company DNC lists, opt-outs synced back from the CRM so downstream workflows respect them, and "Only run if" logic for compliance steps. We found no public information on default per-country channel restrictions, an Art. 14 notice at first contact, or a documented record of how each contact entered the pipeline — the UWG §7 judgement still sits with the buyer. 9 10
The Skeptic
The documented strength of the evidence: DNC screening through Meer against the German Robinsonliste, TPS, Lista Robinson, DNCM and the US national plus state registries, a stated scrub cadence of 28 days minimum and 14 recommended, country include/exclude filters usable as a company DNC list, "only run if" logic for compliance flows, and opt-out data synced back from the CRM into every downstream workflow. The EU guidance stops short of flagging German contacts for email consent by default, and we found no support for an Art. 14 notice at first contact. 9 10
CRM sync, enrichment & export
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the data into the systems where sales works — CRM sync, enrichment of existing records, API — and what happens to exported data, and to the buyer's access to it, when the subscription ends.
0 — Manual CSV export only; no CRM integration and no API.
3 — A one-way push to one CRM, CSV export, and no statement on whether exported data may be kept after cancellation.
5 — Native sync with the major CRMs including field mapping and deduplication, enrichment of existing CRM records, and a documented API with stated limits.
8 — Bidirectional sync with scheduled re-enrichment, update and deletion propagated when a record changes or a person objects, webhook or API access with credit costs per call published, and data retention rights after cancellation stated plainly.
10 — The vendor treats the buyer's CRM as the system of record: objections and corrections propagated into synced records automatically, full change history per field, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, and exit terms that say exactly which data the customer may keep and for how long.
The SDR Team Lead
Enrich CRM adds people and company data, verified work emails, technology, funding and French registry data to existing rows, and the HTTP API is documented with GET/POST/PUT/DELETE methods, pagination up to 50,000 rows and encrypted workspace-level credentials. I found no public information on native sync with field mapping and deduplication for the major CRMs, per-call credit costs, or which exported data the buyer may keep after cancellation. 2 11 12
The RevOps Manager
There is a documented HTTP API that can pull data in and push data out to any endpoint with pagination up to 50,000 rows and reusable encrypted credentials, plus an Enrich CRM integration for people and companies — but I found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, scheduled re-enrichment, or a native bidirectional CRM sync. I also found no public information on what the customer may keep after cancellation; the only termination statement covers deactivating or deleting the account, not exit rights to exported data. 11 12 2
The Data Protection Officer
Enrichment of existing CRM records and a documented HTTP API with GET, POST, PUT and DELETE and 50,000-row pagination limits are evidenced. We found no public information on native bidirectional CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, propagation of objections into synced records, or what the buyer may keep when the subscription ends — and the buyer becomes controller the moment a list is exported, so that silence is the part I cannot sign off on. 11 12
The ABM Marketer
Enriching rows already in my tables is documented, CRM and warehouse act as connected sources whose opt-out updates flow to ad platforms on the next scheduled sync, and an HTTP API can push or pull from any endpoint with pagination up to 50,000 rows. But we found no public information on native CRM field mapping, deduplication, per-call credit costs, or what happens to exported data when the subscription ends. 10 11 12
The DACH Sales Director
An Enrich CRM capability enriches people and companies already in the tables, and the HTTP API can push data out to any endpoint with GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, which is a workable bridge. We found no public information on field mapping, deduplication, bidirectional sync with the major CRMs, scheduled re-enrichment, per-call credit costs, or what data the customer may keep after cancellation. 11 12
The Skeptic
Enrichment of existing CRM records and a documented generic HTTP API (GET/POST/PUT/DELETE, 50,000-row pagination, encrypted workspace credentials) are evidenced, but we found no public information on native CRM sync with field mapping or deduplication, on scheduled re-enrichment, on credit costs per call, or on what exported data the buyer may keep after cancellation. The ten enrichments offered by the Enrich CRM integration is the only unitised figure on the pages. 5 11 12
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where a database of EU residents' personal data is held, who the contracting entity and controller are, and which subprocessors see it. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted heavily here, because the product itself is personal data about people who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and EU residents' contact data processed outside the EU with no stated transfer basis.
3 — Non-EU contracting entity with an EU representative under Art. 27, or EU hosting offered while enrichment, support or AI processing stay non-EU.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU hosting as standard, but parts of the chain — data partners, enrichment sources, tracking infrastructure — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU contracting entity and controller, EU hosting on named infrastructure, subprocessor and data-partner list published, and any non-EU transfer named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, controller, hosting, data partners and every subprocessor European, certification published, and a DPA covering both the customer's data and the database records the customer exports.
The SDR Team Lead
The contracting entity is Clay Labs Inc. at 111 W 19th Street, New York, and hosting and subprocessors are unstated on the captured pages, with the data chain running through 150+ third-party providers. The privacy policy mentions transfers to countries with adequate protection as the only transfer-related statement, and I found no EU entity, EU hosting or Art. 27 representative in evidence. 2 6
The RevOps Manager
Clay Labs Inc. is a New York entity, and I found no public information on data residency, an EU representative, or the jurisdiction of the subprocessors and the 200+ marketplace data vendors behind the product. The privacy policy names adequacy-based transfer mechanisms, but nothing captured evidences EU hosting or a European contracting party. 2 6 1
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity and controller is Clay Labs Inc. of 111 W 19th Street, New York, and we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors, or an EU representative; the privacy notice acknowledges transfers to countries the European Commission has found adequate and nothing more specific. A database of EU residents who never chose this vendor sits in a US entity's chain with unnamed subprocessors, which is where my objection rests. 2 6
The ABM Marketer
Clay Labs Inc. at 111 W 19th Street, New York is the contracting entity and controller of its own database, and we found no public information on hosting location, data residency or a subprocessor list. The privacy notice mentions transfers only to countries the European Commission has found adequate, but with a US entity and unstated hosting my DPO has nothing to review for a DACH deployment. 2 6
The DACH Sales Director
The contracting entity and controller is Clay Labs Inc. of 111 W 19th Street, New York, hosting and data residency are unstated on the captured pages, and the chain runs through 150+ third-party providers of which only a few US names like Hunter and Apollo appear. The privacy notice acknowledges transfers to adequacy countries only, and we found no public information on an EU entity, EU hosting, a subprocessor list or an Art. 27 representative — EU contacts' data ends up with a US controller with no visible safeguard for that transfer. 2 5 6
The Skeptic
The contracting entity and controller is Clay Labs Inc., 111 W 19th Street, New York — a US company — and we found no public information on hosting location or where the 200+ marketplace vendors process; the only transfer statement in the privacy notice is that data may go to countries found to offer adequate protection. No EU representative, no subprocessor list beyond the Transcend privacy platform, no DPA terms shown. 1 2 6
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone — including credits per email, phone number and mobile, credit expiry, seat pricing, visitor-identification tiers and the API — in a category where the unit of billing is often invented by the vendor.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A monthly headline exists, but what a credit buys, whether credits expire, or the cost of an additional seat is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with credit allowances given, but at least one commonly needed piece (mobile numbers, extra seats, API access, CRM sync) is unpriced or behind a sales call.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with credits per data type, credit expiry and rollover, per-seat costs, overage rates, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: the annual invoice derivable for a given number of seats, exported contacts by data type, identified companies and API calls, with every credit cost and the refund rule for inaccurate data published.
The SDR Team Lead
Pricing is framed as depending entirely on the enrichment tools you choose, with a customer figure of less than about 1 cent per enrichment, pay-only-on-result waterfalls at wholesale rates, and a free start with no credit card. No tier prices, seat costs, credit expiry, overage rates or API pricing appear on the captured pages, so I cannot compute an annual invoice from what is public. 1 4 5
The RevOps Manager
The billing model is described — price depends entirely on the enrichment tools chosen, you only pay once a result is found, with a customer claim of less than ~1 cent per enrichment and 1/5th or less of the cost of Zoominfo — but I found no public information on tier prices, credit allowances per data type, seat costs, credit expiry, or the credit cost of API calls. I cannot compute an annual invoice from what is published. 4 5 1
The Data Protection Officer
Public pages show a free start with no credit card, a usage model where "the price of Clay depends entirely on the enrichment tools you choose," pay-only-on-result waterfalls, and comparison claims of "1/5th or less of the cost of Zoominfo." No tier prices, credit allowances by data type, seat costs, or credit expiry terms appear anywhere we could see, so the annual invoice is not computable from what is published. 1 4 5
The ABM Marketer
There is a free start with no credit card, and pricing is described as depending entirely on the enrichment tools chosen, with wholesale provider rates and pay-only-on-result waterfalls — but we found no public information on tier prices, credit allowances, credit expiry, seat costs or VAT treatment. The only public figures are a customer story's less than ~1 cent per enrichment and the claim of 1/5th or less of the cost of Zoominfo, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from the pages alone. 1 4 5
The DACH Sales Director
The only public facts are a free start with no credit card and that "the price of Clay depends entirely on the enrichment tools you choose to use", with a customer quoted at less than about one US cent per enrichment. No tier prices, credit allowances, credit expiry, seat costs, API costs or VAT treatment are published, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from the pages. 1 4
The Skeptic
No tier prices, credit allowances, seat costs, credit expiry, minimum term or VAT treatment appear on the captured pages; the pricing story is "the price of Clay depends entirely on the enrichment tools you choose to use", a free start with no credit card, and a customer anecdote of "less than ~1 cent per enrichment". The wholesale-rates promise and the pay-only-on-result rule tell you the billing model, not the invoice. 1 4 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Clay
Is Clay European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Clay is based.
Where does Clay store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Clay have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Clay?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Cognism (3/5), Dealfront (2.5/5) and Apollo.io (2.5/5) highest among the other 35 Lead Generation products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Cognism (UK / wider Europe). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Clay alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 60 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage privacy.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Coverage, accuracy & freshness — found from sitemap www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Data sources & lawful basis — found from sitemap www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap www.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Visitor identification & intent signals — found from sitemap university.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap university.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Prospecting workflow & outreach rules — found from sitemap university.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap university.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 CRM sync, enrichment & export — found from sitemap university.clay.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →