Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Adapt.io and Apollo.io side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Apollo.io buys far more volume per dollar, listing Basic at $49 per seat a month with 30,000 credits per seat a year billed annually. Adapt.io lists Starter at $49 a month for 500 email credits with no annual commitment. Choose Apollo for volume, Adapt.io for month-to-month flexibility.
Key takeaways
- Adapt.io's pricing page lists Starter at $49 a month for 500 email credits and Basic at $99 for 1,000 email plus 100 phone credits.
- Apollo.io's pricing page lists Basic at $49 per seat a month billed annually with 30,000 credits per seat a year granted upfront.
- Apollo advertises a 24 percent saving on annual billing and Adapt.io prices a yearly commitment 20 percent below monthly.
- Apollo's Organization tier carries a three seat minimum, so its real floor is three times the $119 per seat rate on the page.
Reviewed and updated August 28, 2026
Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Adapt.io and Apollo.io both charge $49 at their first paid rung, and the two plans behind that number are not close. Adapt.io's Starter buys 500 email credits a month. Apollo's Basic buys 30,000 credits per seat a year, which is 2,500 a month. Same headline price, five times the allowance, and the reason is that one of them is asking for an annual commitment.
The Quick Answer
Apollo.io buys far more contact volume per dollar and bundles sequencing with the data. Its pricing page lists Basic at $49 per seat a month billed annually with 30,000 credits per seat a year. Adapt.io lists Starter at $49 a month for 500 email credits with no annual commitment. Choose Apollo when you want volume and an all-in-one platform. Choose Adapt.io when you want month-to-month flexibility and a simple list builder.
Understanding the Core Difference
Adapt.io is a B2B lead intelligence platform with a large contact database, Prospector Chrome extension, and data enrichment with 50+ attributes.
Apollo.io is an all-in-one sales intelligence platform with 240M+ contacts, AI-powered campaigns, and built-in email sequencing.
Adapt.io is a list building tool that stops at the export. Apollo is a database with a sequencer, a dialer and pipeline management attached, which is why its credit allowances look generous: the data is the entry point to a wider subscription. Buying Adapt.io leaves your sending stack untouched, and buying Apollo usually starts a conversation about replacing part of it.
Pricing Comparison
Free plan, 25 email credits
Free plan, 900 credits per seat per year
Adapt.io Pricing
| Plan | Price | Email credits | Other credits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | 25 email credits | 25 enrichment credits, 25 contacts a day |
| Starter | $49/mo | 500 email credits | 500 enrichment credits, 50 contacts a day |
| Basic | $99/mo | 1,000 email credits | 100 phone credits, 1,000 enrichment credits |
| Custom | Talk to sales | Custom | Custom |
Phone credits appear only at Basic, so a team that needs mobile numbers starts at the third rung rather than the second. The page prices a yearly commitment 20 percent below monthly and opens with a 7-day free trial that asks for no credit card.
Source: Adapt.io Pricing
Apollo.io Pricing
| Plan | Price | Credits | Seats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | 900 credits per seat a year, granted monthly | 1 or more |
| Basic | $49 per seat/mo | 30,000 credits per seat a year, granted upfront | 1 or more |
| Professional | $79 per seat/mo | 48,000 credits per seat a year, granted upfront | 1 or more |
| Organization | $119 per seat/mo | 72,000 credits per seat a year, granted upfront | 3 minimum |
Every paid rate above is the per seat per month price billed annually, which is the state the page opens in, and it advertises a saving of 24 percent against monthly billing. Organization carries a three seat minimum, so its real floor is three times the listed rate.
Source: Apollo.io Pricing
How these figures were checked
Adapt.io's tiers, credit allowances, daily contact ceilings, yearly discount and free trial terms were all grepped out of a dated snapshot of adapt.io/pricing taken for this comparison. Apollo's rates and credit grants were read from a dated snapshot of apollo.io/pricing taken for this comparison, fetched with a headless browser because the prices render in JavaScript rather than in the served HTML.
Two habits sit behind those sentences and both are worth borrowing when you check a vendor price yourself. A figure belongs to a page rather than to a company, because vendors contradict themselves across their own surfaces, so the page is part of the fact. And a pricing page that renders a monthly and an annual state into the same document will hand a careless reader a rate no visitor is shown, which is why the billing basis is named beside every number above rather than left implied.
What the two cost at a realistic volume
Price an invented case: one operator needing 1,000 verified emails a month, no phone numbers. The volume is illustrative and both rates are published. On Adapt.io that is the Basic plan at $99 a month, which its pricing page lists as 1,000 email credits, 100 phone credits and 1,000 enrichment credits, so about ten cents a contact. On Apollo the Basic plan at $49 per seat a month grants 30,000 credits per seat a year, which is 2,500 a month, so the requirement fits inside the cheaper tier at under two cents a contact. Apollo is roughly five times better value on this invented volume, and the qualification is that its rate is billed annually while Adapt.io's is not.
Reading the price ladders against each other
That annual qualification is the whole counterargument. Apollo's rates are per seat per month billed annually, which its pricing page opens on, and it advertises a 24 percent saving against monthly billing. Adapt.io's ladder is monthly by default, with a yearly commitment priced 20 percent below. Apollo's credits are also granted upfront on annual plans, so a team that cancels mid year forfeits an allowance it has paid for. Adapt.io's Organization equivalent is a Custom tier, while Apollo's Organization carries a three seat minimum that makes its real floor $357 a month.
Features Breakdown
- Business contacts across the database
- Company profiles
- Prospector Chrome extension
- Data enrichment with 50+ attributes
- Lead builder with advanced filters
- ABM list building
- and 4 more listed below
- 240M+ contacts database
- 30M+ companies
- AI-powered multichannel campaigns
- Email deliverability guardrails
- Anonymous visitor identification
- Real-time form enrichment
- and 4 more listed below
Adapt.io key features
- Business contacts across the database
- Company profiles
- Prospector Chrome extension
- Data enrichment with 50+ attributes
- Lead builder with advanced filters
- ABM list building
- 3,000+ tech sector classifications
- Saved searches
- CSV export
- API access
Apollo.io key features
- 240M+ contacts database
- 30M+ companies
- AI-powered multichannel campaigns
- Email deliverability guardrails
- Anonymous visitor identification
- Real-time form enrichment
- Contact and company enrichment
- Advanced filtering
- CRM data cleansing
- Pipeline boards
Adapt.io's list is a list builder's list: advanced filters, saved searches, ABM list building from uploaded domains, a tech sector taxonomy and API access. Apollo's covers that ground and keeps going into AI multichannel campaigns, deliverability guardrails, anonymous visitor identification, real time form enrichment and pipeline boards. The extra breadth is only a saving if it replaces something you are already paying for.
Integration Ecosystem
Adapt.io connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho CRM, Marketo, Outreach, Zapier.
Apollo.io connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Outreach, SalesLoft, Marketo, SendGrid, LinkedIn.
Both tools integrate with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Marketo, Outreach.
Apollo reaches SalesLoft, SendGrid and LinkedIn, which reflects a product that expects to run the outreach itself. Adapt.io reaches Zoho CRM and Zapier, which reflects one that expects to hand data off. The four shared names, Salesforce, HubSpot, Marketo and Outreach, cover the systems most teams treat as the record.
Who Should Pick Which
Pick Apollo.io when volume matters and you can commit for a year. The credit allowances are the strongest in this comparison, and if the bundled sequencer replaces a separate subscription the effective saving is larger than the price difference suggests.
Pick Adapt.io when you want to stay month to month. A team testing a new market, an agency running a short engagement, or anyone who does not want another annual contract gets a genuine benefit from a plan that can be cancelled next month.
Pick Adapt.io when your sending stack is settled and you have no intention of moving it. Paying for Apollo's engagement features and not using them turns its volume advantage into a smaller one, and the list building job Adapt.io does is the only part you needed.
Where Each One Sits in a Cold Outbound Stack
- Step 1Build the list
Decide who belongs on it at all. Adapt.io is a list builder you run before anyone is contacted.
- Step 2Resolve the contact
Turn a name into an address you can send to. Apollo.io is a database and a sending tool sold as one subscription.
- Step 3Verify before sending
Check the address separately from whoever supplied it, because a bounce costs sending reputation.
- Step 4Send one message
One message per campaign, no bumps and no thread replies, so each address gets a single attempt.
Adapt.io occupies one slot in a cold outbound stack, at the front, where the list is assembled. Apollo wants to occupy three: the list, the enrichment and the send. Consolidation reduces vendor count and raises the cost of changing your mind about any one layer.
House practice is one message per campaign with no bumps and no thread replies, which lowers the value of a bundled sequencer's sequence features considerably. What carries an outbound wave is address quality and the health of the sending domain, so a stack that keeps the data source separable from the sender can fix a deliverability problem without renegotiating a data contract. See cold email infrastructure for what that separation buys.
Switching Between Them
Moving from Adapt.io to Apollo is easy and expands your commitment. Contacts export to CSV, both reach Salesforce and HubSpot, and the work is deciding whether sending moves too. Do that deliberately rather than drifting into it, because a half-migrated sending stack is worse than either whole one.
Moving the other way is harder, since Apollo holds sequence history and pipeline records that Adapt.io has no equivalent for. Export contacts and any live sequences before the term ends, and time the move to a renewal: Apollo grants annual credits upfront, so leaving mid year forfeits an allowance already paid for.
Feature Comparison Summary
| Comparison | Adapt.io | Apollo.io |
|---|---|---|
| Entry rung | Free | Free |
| First paid rung | $49/mo | $49/seat/mo |
| What that paid rung is | Starter, 500 email credits | Basic, billed annually |
| Where it sits in a stack | A list builder you run before anyone is contacted | A database and a sending tool sold as one subscription |
Getting Started Checklist
- Decide whether an annual commitment is acceptable, since that settles most of this comparison
- Work out whether the bundled sequencer would replace a subscription you already pay for
- Convert both allowances to credits a month before comparing, since one is quoted yearly
- Count seats, because both price per seat above the free tier
- Check whether you would actually spend Apollo's annual grant
- Test both free tiers on the same 100 rows of your own ICP
Final Thoughts
Apollo.io is the better value on volume by a wide margin and the better fit for a team happy to consolidate outbound into one platform on an annual contract. Adapt.io is the better fit for month-to-month list building alongside a sending stack you have no intention of changing. Decide the commitment question first, because the price comparison depends entirely on the answer.
Related Reading
- Best Adapt.io Alternatives in 2026
- Best Apollo.io Alternatives in 2026
- Adapt.io vs ZoomInfo: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Adapt.io vs Clay: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Apollo.io vs ZoomInfo: Which B2B Data Platform Should You Choose?
If you would rather have this run for you, RevenueFlow books qualified meetings on a pay-per-meeting basis and publishes client results.
Pricing and features are taken from the vendors' own pages. Verify current terms with the vendor before relying on them.
Frequently asked questions.
Frequently asked questions- Which gives more contacts for $49?
- Apollo, by roughly five times. Its Basic plan grants 30,000 credits per seat a year at $49 per seat a month, which works out at 2,500 a month, against Adapt.io's 500 email credits a month at the same headline rate. The qualification is that Apollo's price is billed annually and Adapt.io's Starter can be paid month to month.
- Does Adapt.io require an annual contract?
- No. Adapt.io's ladder is monthly by default, with a yearly commitment priced 20 percent lower according to its pricing page, and it opens with a 7-day free trial that asks for no credit card. That flexibility is the main reason to choose it over a platform with much larger credit allowances behind an annual term.
- Is Apollo's sequencer worth paying for?
- It is worth paying for if it replaces a separate sending subscription. If your sending stack is settled and you have no plan to move it, the sequencing, dialer and pipeline features are capacity you are not using, and the volume advantage over Adapt.io shrinks accordingly once you price only the data you need.
- What happens to Apollo credits if I cancel mid year?
- Apollo grants annual plan credits upfront rather than monthly, so cancelling part way through the term forfeits whatever allowance remains unspent. That makes the renewal date the right moment to reconsider the tool, and it is a practical argument for testing on the free tier before committing to a year.
About the author.
Tim Carden is CMO / CTO at RevenueFlow, which builds and operates outbound revenue engines for B2B companies. Studied at McGill University.
Tim Carden · CMO / CTO
Connect on LinkedIn →Explore more.
Ready to scale your outreach?
We build GTM engines that book real meetings. See the receipts.
Related articles.
Adapt.io vs RocketReach: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Adapt.io and RocketReach side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Apollo.io vs LeadIQ: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Apollo.io and LeadIQ side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Datanyze vs Lead411: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Datanyze and Lead411 side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Datanyze vs UpLead: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Datanyze and UpLead side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Clearbit vs Lead411: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Clearbit and Lead411 side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Lead411 vs ZoomInfo: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Lead411 and ZoomInfo side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.