Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Cross-Category Comparison
Adapt.io meters email, phone and enrichment credits separately, and phone credits appear only at $99. Apollo pools them per seat and sends from the same seat.
Adapt.io publishes $0, $49 and $99 a month, metering email, phone and enrichment credits separately, with phone credits only on the $99 Basic tier. Apollo.io is $49 to $119 per seat per month billed annually, pooling 30,000 to 72,000 credits a seat a year and sending from the same seat.
Key takeaways
- Adapt.io publishes Free at $0 with 25 email and 25 enrichment credits, Starter at $49 with 500 of each, and Basic at $99 with 1,000 email credits, 100 phone credits and 1,000 enrichment credits.
- Phone credits appear only on Adapt.io's $99 Basic tier, so no cheaper plan can cover phone number work whatever its email allowance says.
- Apollo.io grants 30,000 credits per seat per year on its $49 Basic tier and covers sequencing, deliverability tooling and mailbox purchasing on the same seat.
- Adapt.io publishes a 20 percent saving on yearly billing and a 7 day free trial with no credit card required.
Reviewed and updated August 28, 2026
Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Cross-Category Comparison
Adapt.io meters three kinds of credit separately, and phone credits appear on exactly one tier. Adapt.io Free carries 25 email and 25 enrichment credits, Adapt.io Starter at $49 a month carries 500 of each, and Adapt.io Basic at $99 carries 1,000 email credits, 100 phone credits and 1,000 enrichment credits. Nothing below Adapt.io Basic at $99 buys a phone number at all.
Apollo.io pools everything into one allowance per seat and sends from the same seat, at $49, $79 and $119 per seat per month billed annually. So this pair is unusual on this shelf: both sides publish, and one of them covers the other's whole job.
Why Compare These Two Tools?
Data enrichment tools provide the contact data that sales engagement platforms use for outreach sequences. The question for buyers is often whether an all-in-one platform that includes data can replace a dedicated enrichment tool.
Adapt.io is a data enrichment tool focused on B2B lead data and contact enrichment. Adapt.io is a B2B lead intelligence platform with 250M+ contacts, Prospector Chrome extension, and data enrichment with 50+ attributes.
Apollo.io is a sales engagement platform focused on multi-channel sales outreach. Apollo.io is an all-in-one sales intelligence and engagement platform combining a 240M+ contact database with automated sequences, email outreach, dialer, and AI-powered workflows for prospecting at scale.
Apollo.io is the rare product on this comparison that spans both categories. The same seat searches a contact database, reveals a record, enriches a CRM and then sends the sequence, all metered from one credit pool. Its plan cards list unlimited sequences from the Basic tier up, a deliverability suite with email warmup, domain and mailbox purchasing, waterfall enrichment and a dialer that draws on credits. Adapt.io does none of the sending half and is not sold to; it is a lead intelligence tool with a Prospector extension, ABM list building and a large filter set.
Where Each Tool Fits in Your Workflow
- Step 1Lead sourcing and data
Adapt.io covers B2B lead data and contact enrichment, on a free entry plan.
- Step 2Outreach orchestration
Apollo.io covers multi-channel sales outreach, on a free entry plan.
| Aspect | Adapt.io | Apollo.io |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Data Enrichment Tool | Sales Engagement Platform |
| Workflow Stage | Lead sourcing and data | Outreach orchestration |
| Primary Focus | B2B lead data and contact enrichment | Multi-channel sales outreach |
| Starting Price | Free | Free |
| Features Listed | 10 | 10 |
| Integrations | 6 | 12 |
What Each Side Actually Does in a Cold Outbound Run
A cold outbound run has a fixed shape, and these two categories sit in different parts of it. Targeting comes first, and that is a decision about who is worth writing to rather than a piece of software. Then the list gets built and a mailbox gets resolved for every person on it. That half belongs to Adapt.io: search filters, a browser extension over a profile, a spreadsheet pushed back through enrichment, and a verification pass that throws away anything the provider could not confirm.
Sending is Apollo.io's half. Sender accounts, sending windows, the daily cap on each mailbox, reply detection and the record of who answered all live there. RevenueFlow runs one message per campaign, so nothing on that side is a bump step or a thread reply waiting to fire. A prospect who stays quiet gets re-approached later through a new campaign with a different angle, never with a second message stacked under the one they ignored, and on LinkedIn that second message does not get sent at all.
The last stage belongs to neither product. Somebody reads the reply, somebody books the meeting, and the meeting counts only against qualification criteria written down before the campaign launched. A tool can route a reply into a queue. It cannot decide what a qualified meeting is, and a stack that quietly redefines that as it goes will report a good month nobody actually had.
Pricing Comparison
Adapt.io Pricing
| Plan | Price | Contacts | Emails |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | 25 email + 25 enrichment credits, 25 contacts/day | N/A |
| Starter | $49/mo | 500 email + 500 enrichment credits, 50 contacts/day | N/A |
| Basic | $99/mo | 1,000 email + 100 phone + 1,000 enrichment credits | N/A |
| Custom | Contact Sales | Custom | N/A |
Source: Adapt.io Pricing
Apollo.io Pricing
| Plan | Price | Credits | Seats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Free | 900 credits per seat/year, granted monthly | 1 or more |
| Basic | $49/mo | 30,000 credits per seat/year, granted upfront | 1 or more |
| Professional | $79/mo | 48,000 credits per seat/year, granted upfront | 1 or more |
| Organization | $119/mo | 72,000 credits per seat/year, granted upfront | 3 minimum |
Every paid price above is the per seat per month rate billed annually, and the Organization tier carries a three seat minimum.
Source: Apollo.io Pricing
Reading the Two Price Shapes Together
Both ladders are published, which makes the year priceable from two web pages. Adapt.io is $0, $49 and $99 a month with a custom tier above, and its page publishes a 20 percent saving on yearly billing. Apollo is $49, $79 and $119 per seat per month billed annually, granting 30,000, 48,000 and 72,000 credits per seat per year granted upfront, with a three seat minimum on the top tier.
The credit columns are where they separate. Adapt.io's top published tier carries 1,000 email credits a month, which is 12,000 a year. Apollo's cheapest paid seat carries 30,000 a year and sends as well. On volume that is not a close comparison, and the case for Adapt.io has to rest on something else.
What One Year of This Stack Actually Costs
The numbers below are invented for the example. The prices are the ones each vendor publishes, and the annual saving is applied as arithmetic on a published monthly rate.
A two person team on Apollo Basic pays $49 per seat per month billed annually, so $98 a month and $1,176 for the year, with 60,000 credits across the two seats. That single line covers list building, enrichment and sending.
An Adapt.io Basic subscription is $99 a month, so $1,188 for the year paying monthly. Adapt.io publishes a 20 percent saving on yearly billing, and 20 percent off $99 is $79.20 a month, which works out at $950.40 for the year. Either way the subscription carries 1,000 email credits, 100 phone credits and 1,000 enrichment credits a month, and no sending platform at all.
So a team buying Adapt.io still has to buy somewhere to send from, and if that somewhere is Apollo, the Adapt.io line is adding 12,000 email credits a year to an allowance of 60,000. The number that has to justify it is the phone credits, or coverage on rows Apollo returns empty.
Feature Highlights
Adapt.io Key Capabilities (Data Enrichment Tool)
- 250M+ business contacts
- 10M+ 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 Capabilities (Sales Engagement Platform)
- B2B contact and company database (240M+ contacts)
- Multi-channel sequences (email, phone, LinkedIn)
- AI-powered email writing and optimization
- Built-in dialer with call recording
- Automated workflows and engagement rules
- A/B testing for email sequences
- Buying intent signals and job change alerts
- Advanced lead scoring and filtering
- Email deliverability tools and mailbox rotation
- Conversation intelligence (Professional+)
Where the Two Actually Overlap
This is the heaviest overlap in the batch, because Apollo genuinely does both jobs. Both hold B2B contact data, both enrich records, both push into Salesforce, HubSpot and Outreach, and both run a browser extension. Apollo then adds everything Adapt.io does not sell: sequencing, deliverability tooling, mailbox purchasing and a dialer.
The one place Adapt.io's shape is genuinely distinct is its metering. Splitting email, phone and enrichment credits into three separate allowances makes it possible to buy exactly the axis a workflow consumes, where a pooled credit model lets an expensive field quietly drain a shared allowance. That is a real difference in cost control, and it is the argument to test rather than the feature lists.
Integration Ecosystem
Adapt.io Integrations
Adapt.io connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho CRM, Marketo, Outreach, Zapier.
Apollo.io Integrations
Apollo.io connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Gmail, Microsoft Outlook, LinkedIn, Zapier, Slack, Sendgrid, Outreach, Salesloft, Webhooks API.
Shared Integrations
Both tools integrate with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Outreach, Zapier. This shared ecosystem means they can work together in your tech stack.
When to Choose Which
- Your biggest gap is in lead sourcing and data
- You already have a solid sales engagement platform and need specialized B2B lead data and contact enrichment capabilities
- You want an affordable entry point ($0/mo)
- Your team's primary bottleneck is B2B lead data and contact enrichment
- Your biggest gap is in outreach orchestration
- You already have a data enrichment tool and need better multi-channel sales outreach
- You want an affordable entry point ($0/mo)
- Your team's primary bottleneck is multi-channel sales outreach
Read that split as a question about which gap is open rather than about which product is better. Adapt.io answers a sourcing question and Apollo.io answers a sending one, and a team that names the wrong gap buys a capable tool that changes nothing.
Do You Need Both, and in Which Order?
Usually one line, and usually Apollo, unless phone credits are the point.
Apollo covers both halves of the run at a published price, so a team choosing between these two is often choosing whether to add a second data subscription at all. At 12,000 email credits a year against Apollo's 30,000 per seat, Adapt.io cannot be bought for volume.
The case for adding it is narrow and real. Adapt.io's Basic tier is the only place in its ladder where phone credits exist, at 100 a month, so a team that needs a modest, predictable dial budget and does not want it competing with email lookups in a shared pool has a reason to keep the two separate. The ABM list building from a list of company websites is the other distinct workflow.
If neither applies, the honest read is that this is one product's job, and the second subscription is duplicated spend on a different invoice.
Using Both Together
Many sales teams use both a data enrichment tool and a sales engagement platform as part of their complete workflow. Adapt.io handles lead sourcing and data while Apollo.io covers outreach orchestration.
Since both tools integrate with Salesforce, HubSpot, Outreach, connecting them in your workflow is straightforward.
Rolling It Out Without Breaking the Run
Test on the axis that actually binds. Adapt.io publishes a 7 day free trial with no credit card, and Apollo publishes a 14 day trial on its paid tiers, so both halves of this decision can be measured before anything is signed.
Whichever order the two arrive in, keep the sending inventory out of it. Sender domains, mailbox warmup and daily caps are their own project, and a stack change made in the same week as a sending change leaves nothing to attribute a bounce rate to. Change one layer, let a full wave run, then change the next.
Two more habits save real money. Run the trial on accounts already worked rather than on a fresh list, because the only coverage question that matters is coverage on the segment being sold to, and a vendor's own sample is chosen to look good. And export what the incumbent already found before any subscription lapses: contact records bought once are cheap to keep and expensive to buy twice.
Decision Framework
- Name the gap before naming a tool. Write down which stage is actually costing meetings: a list that runs out, addresses that bounce, or messages that never go out on time. A stack decision made without that sentence is a preference.
- Check what the existing stack already covers. Overlapping spend is the normal failure here, and it is usually invisible because the two products are filed under different budget lines.
- Price the whole year, not the entry tier. Seat minimums, annual billing and per-credit top-ups move the real number more than the headline price does.
- Trial on the accounts being sold to. Coverage is a property of a segment, not of a database, so a sample drawn from the target list is the only test worth running.
- Measure at the pipeline, not per tool. Both products feed one funnel, so the honest measure is meetings booked against criteria fixed in advance, read before and after the change.
The Short Version
Needs list, enrichment and sending on one line: Apollo, Basic tier. Needs a separate, predictable phone credit budget that email work cannot drain: Adapt.io Basic at $99. Building ABM lists from a list of company websites: Adapt.io. Everything else: one line, and it is usually Apollo.
Related Reading
- Best Adapt.io Alternatives in 2026
- Best Apollo.io Alternatives in 2026
- Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Adapt.io vs ZoomInfo: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Apollo.io vs Outreach: Sales Engagement Platform Comparison
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- How much does Adapt.io cost?
- Adapt.io publishes a free tier at $0 a month with 25 email credits, 25 enrichment credits and 25 contacts a day, Starter at $49 with 500 of each and 50 contacts a day, and Basic at $99 with 1,000 email credits, 100 phone credits, 1,000 enrichment credits and 100 contacts a day. A custom tier is quoted, and yearly billing is published at a 20 percent saving.
- Which Adapt.io plan includes phone numbers?
- Only Basic at $99 a month, which carries 100 phone credits. The free and Starter tiers list email and enrichment credits alone, so a workflow that depends on reaching people by phone cannot run on the cheaper plans however generous their email allowance looks.
- Can Apollo.io replace Adapt.io entirely?
- For most teams, yes on capability. Apollo holds contact data, enriches records and sends from the same seat, at 30,000 credits per seat per year on its cheapest paid tier against Adapt.io's 12,000 email credits a year at the top published tier. The reason to keep Adapt.io is a separate, predictable phone budget or its ABM list building workflow.
- Why does Adapt.io split credits into three types?
- Finding an email, finding a phone number and enriching an existing record are separate operations, and each draws on its own allowance. That makes cost control explicit, at the price of being easy to buy a plan that is generous on an axis nobody uses. Work out which of the three the process actually consumes before choosing a tier.
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.
Apollo.io vs ContactOut: Cross-Category Comparison
Apollo.io meters seats and credits; ContactOut caps exports and leaves emails unlimited. The miss rate on your own list decides whether the second line is worth $99.
Apollo.io vs Cognism: Cross-Category Comparison
Apollo.io publishes a self serve ladder from $49 a seat. Cognism publishes no price at all. What that asymmetry means for a phone led or European motion.
Lead411 vs Salesloft: Cross-Category Comparison
Compare Lead411 (data enrichment tool) and Salesloft (sales engagement platform) side by side. Understand how these tools fit different stages of your sales workflow.
Groove by Clari vs Seamless.AI: Cross-Category Comparison
Seamless.AI covers sourcing while Groove by Clari covers sending and follow-through. Which gap to close first, what a year costs, and whether a team needs both.
LeadIQ vs Salesloft: Cross-Category Comparison
Compare LeadIQ (data enrichment tool) and Salesloft (sales engagement platform) side by side. Understand how these tools fit different stages of your sales workflow.
Clearbit vs Gong: Cross-Category Comparison
Clearbit covers sourcing and verified contacts while Gong covers sending and follow-through. Which gap to close first, what a year costs, and whether a team needs both.