Adapt.io vs Clay: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Adapt.io and Clay side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Adapt.io is a contact database with fixed tiers, at $49 a month for 500 email credits and $99 for 1,000. Clay is a usage-priced orchestration layer starting from 15,000 actions a month. Choose Adapt.io when one source covers your market and Clay when you need several combined.
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.
- Clay prices actions rather than seats, with Launch starting from 15,000 actions a month, so the bill tracks enrichment volume rather than headcount.
- A Clay waterfall spends an action per enrichment attempt, so action counts track data difficulty rather than list size.
- Adapt.io is cheap enough to sit as one source inside a Clay waterfall rather than being replaced by it.
Reviewed and updated August 28, 2026
Adapt.io vs Clay: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Adapt.io sells you contacts. Clay sells you a place to combine contacts from many sources, including ones you already pay for. That makes a straight price comparison misleading, because the two are priced in different units and one of them is frequently bought to sit on top of the other rather than instead of it.
The Quick Answer
Adapt.io is a contact database with fixed monthly tiers, listing Starter at $49 a month for 500 email credits and Basic at $99 for 1,000. Clay is a usage-priced orchestration layer whose Launch tier starts from 15,000 actions a month according to its pricing page. Choose Adapt.io when a single source covers your market. Choose Clay when it does not and you want to design the fallback yourself.
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.
Clay is a data enrichment and workflow automation platform with 150+ integrations and AI-powered enrichment (Claygent).
The unit of billing gives the game away. Adapt.io meters credits against a plan, so the bill is known before the month starts. Clay meters actions, so the bill reflects how much work the enrichment actually did, including the retries a waterfall spends on a stubborn row. One is a budget, the other is a meter.
Pricing Comparison
Free plan, 25 email credits
Launch, from 15,000 actions a month
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
Clay Pricing
| Plan | Price | Actions |
|---|---|---|
| Launch | Usage based | From 15,000 actions a month |
| Growth | Usage based | From 40,000 actions a month |
| Enterprise | Talk to sales | Custom |
Clay prices credits rather than seats, so the published tiers are volume bands rather than a per user rate. That makes the bill a function of how much enrichment a workflow actually runs, which is the opposite shape from a per seat subscription.
Source: Clay 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. Clay's action bands were read from a dated snapshot of clay.com/pricing taken for this comparison.
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
Take an invented job: a 1,000 row list needing an email and a company enrichment on each row. The volume is illustrative and both sets of published rates apply. On Adapt.io that is the Basic plan at $99 a month, which its pricing page lists as 1,000 email credits plus 1,000 enrichment credits, so the job fits exactly inside one tier. On Clay the same list counts as 2,000 actions before any retries, well inside the 15,000 actions its Launch tier starts from. The comparison breaks down at the retries: a Clay waterfall that tries three providers on a difficult row spends three actions on it, so the action count reflects your data difficulty rather than your list size, and Adapt.io's credit count does not.
Reading the price ladders against each other
Two structural differences matter more than the rates. Clay lists volume bands rather than a per user rate, so headcount never changes the bill, while Adapt.io's tiers are per account with daily contact ceilings attached, which constrain a team differently from a credit total. And Adapt.io's yearly commitment is priced 20 percent below monthly with a 7-day free trial that asks for no credit card, so the cost of trying it is genuinely zero. Clay's cost of trying is mostly your time, since the value only appears once a table has been built.
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
- 150+ data provider integrations
- AI-powered enrichment (Claygent)
- Unlimited users on all plans
- Credit rollover
- Workflow automation
- Data waterfall enrichment
- and 3 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
Clay key features
- 150+ data provider integrations
- AI-powered enrichment (Claygent)
- Unlimited users on all plans
- Credit rollover
- Workflow automation
- Data waterfall enrichment
- Custom API key support
- HTTP API integration
- Webhooks
Adapt.io's list is a sourcing list: advanced filters, saved searches, ABM list building from uploaded domains, a tech sector taxonomy, CSV export and API access. Clay's is an orchestration list: waterfall enrichment, an AI research agent, custom API key support, webhooks and credit rollover. A team using Clay generally still buys contact data from somewhere, which is the clearest sign these two are not substitutes.
Integration Ecosystem
Adapt.io connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Zoho CRM, Marketo, Outreach, Zapier.
Clay connects with: Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Close, Apollo.io, Clearbit, ZoomInfo, Lemlist, Instantly, Smartlead, OpenAI, Google Sheets, Airtable, Notion.
Both tools integrate with: Salesforce, HubSpot.
Clay's integration list reads like a stack diagram: other data vendors, sequencers such as Lemlist, Instantly and Smartlead, and Google Sheets, Airtable and Notion. Adapt.io's is a handoff list: Zoho CRM, Marketo, Outreach and Zapier. Both reach Salesforce and HubSpot, so either can write to the system of record, and only one of them is designed to sit between other tools.
Who Should Pick Which
Pick Adapt.io when your ICP is mainstream and a single source resolves most of it. Paying $49 or $99 a month for a predictable allowance beats building a workflow you did not need, and the free trial makes the test cheap.
Pick Clay when your unresolved rate is the actual problem. Niche verticals, non-US markets and unusual titles are where a single provider runs out, and a waterfall that tries several sources is the only structural answer to that.
Pick both when the volume justifies orchestration. Adapt.io is cheap enough to sit as one source inside a Clay waterfall, tried before more expensive providers, and that arrangement is usually better value than either alone once list volume is high enough to pay for the setup time.
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. Clay is the enrichment layer other tools feed into and out of.
- 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.
Clay sits above the data vendors in a cold outbound stack and decides which one to try. Adapt.io sits among the vendors as one of the sources it would call. A team treating them as competitors usually has no orchestration layer at all and is running the waterfall by hand in a spreadsheet, which works until the list gets big.
Downstream the shape is the same either way. House practice is one message per campaign with no bumps and no thread replies, so every resolved address gets exactly one attempt and a wrong one costs sending reputation. That makes a verification step after enrichment non negotiable, and it is one of the better arguments for orchestration, since a waterfall can put verification in the path instead of leaving it to a separate pass. See email verification tools.
Switching Between Them
Moving from Adapt.io to Clay is a rebuild rather than a migration. The contacts export cleanly and the work is recreating your sourcing logic as a table with enrichment columns. Keep the Adapt.io plan live while you build, and expect the new setup to underperform the old one for a week or two.
Moving from Clay to Adapt.io loses the fallback logic entirely. Before committing, check how often your waterfall gets past its first provider. If it rarely does, the orchestration was not earning its keep and the simpler tool will cover the job. If it often does, switching will show up as an unresolved rate you did not have before.
Feature Comparison Summary
| Comparison | Adapt.io | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| Entry rung | Free | Usage based |
| First paid rung | $49/mo | Usage based |
| What that paid rung is | Starter, 500 email credits | Launch, from 15,000 actions a month |
| Where it sits in a stack | A list builder you run before anyone is contacted | The enrichment layer other tools feed into and out of |
Getting Started Checklist
- Measure your current unresolved rate, which is the number orchestration exists to improve
- Decide whether the problem is finding contacts or combining sources
- Count your list in actions as well as rows if Clay is in contention, allowing for retries
- Use Adapt.io's 7-day free trial before assuming a single source is insufficient
- Budget building time honestly if Clay wins, since the value arrives after the table does
- Confirm verification sits somewhere in the path before the send
Final Thoughts
Adapt.io is the simpler and cheaper purchase, and the right one when a single source covers your market at a predictable monthly cost. Clay is the more capable purchase and the right one when no single source does. Measure your unresolved rate before choosing, because that number decides whether orchestration is leverage or overhead.
Related Reading
- Best Adapt.io Alternatives in 2026
- Best Clay Alternatives in 2026
- Adapt.io vs Apollo.io: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Adapt.io vs ZoomInfo: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
- Apollo vs Clay: Choosing the Right Data Enrichment Tool for B2B Sales
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- Is Clay a replacement for Adapt.io?
- Usually not. Clay is an orchestration layer that calls data sources rather than a database of its own, so teams adopting it generally keep a contact provider underneath. Adapt.io's low tier prices make it a reasonable first step in a Clay waterfall, tried before more expensive providers, rather than something Clay removes the need for.
- Which is cheaper for a small list?
- Adapt.io, and by a clear margin for predictable work. Its Starter plan covers 500 email credits for $49 a month with no annual commitment, where Clay's Launch tier starts from 15,000 actions a month on usage pricing. For a mainstream ICP resolving well from one source, the orchestration layer is overhead rather than leverage.
- What is an action in Clay?
- An action is one enrichment step run against a row, not one contact found. A two step enrichment on a 1,000 row list is 2,000 actions before retries, and a waterfall that tries three providers on a hard row spends three actions on that row alone. That is why action counts reflect how difficult your data is rather than how large your list is.
- Can I use Adapt.io inside Clay?
- Clay's model is built around calling multiple providers in sequence and it supports custom API keys and HTTP integrations, so bringing your own source is a normal pattern. Adapt.io publishes API access on its feature list. The arrangement pays off once list volume is high enough that the saving from trying a cheap source first exceeds the setup time.
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.
Clay vs Seamless.AI: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Clay and Seamless.AI side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
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.
Clay vs LeadIQ: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Clay and LeadIQ side by side. See pricing, features, and integrations to choose the right data enrichment tool for your needs.
Clay vs RocketReach: Data Enrichment Tool Comparison
Compare Clay and RocketReach 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.