Apollo.io vs Lusha: Cross-Category Comparison

Buyers comparing Lusha vs Apollo usually ask which one has better contact data, and neither pricing page publishes a number that settles it. What the pages do publish is the price of each lookup. Lusha Pro is $69.90 a month, or $52.45 a month billed yearly for 7,200 credits a year, and Lusha Premium is $399.90, or $299.95 billed yearly for 40,800.

Apollo.io grants 30,000 credits per seat per year on a $49 seat billed annually and sends from the same seat. So the question is rarely which database is better. It is whether a second, extension driven lookup habit is worth a line.

Lusha vs Apollo: which one has better contact data?

Neither vendor publishes a coverage or accuracy figure that settles it. Apollo's product menu cites 240M contacts and 30M companies; Lusha's pricing page sells verified emails at 1 credit and phone numbers at 5. The test that answers it for your market is running accounts one tool already missed through the other's free tier: 900 credits per seat a year on Apollo, 40 a month on Lusha.

For the other pair people search against Lusha, Lead411 vs Lusha sets its credit model beside Lead411's.

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.

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.

Lusha is a data enrichment tool focused on B2B lead data and contact enrichment. Lusha is a B2B contact database with browser extension for LinkedIn prospecting, CSV enrichment, and intent signals.

Lusha's centre of gravity is the browser extension over a LinkedIn profile, alongside CSV enrichment, bulk reveal and intent alerts. On yearly billing the credits are granted upfront for the year, which matters more than it sounds: 7,200 a year on Pro can be spent in a single heavy month if the work is lumpy, where a monthly cap would strand the same allowance across twelve. On monthly billing the same plans grant credits each month instead, 400 on Starter and 600 on Pro, with Pro and Premium credits rolling over up to 2x. The free tier carries 40 credits a month, which is enough to test the extension on a handful of real profiles and nothing more.

Where Each Tool Fits in Your Workflow

What Each Side Actually Does in a Cold Outbound Run

Apollo.io covers more of this run than one category label suggests. The same seat that sends the sequence also searches the database, reveals a contact and enriches a CRM record, and Apollo's pricing page meters all of it from one credit pool per seat. So the useful question on this page is not which product sends the email. It is whether Apollo's own data holds up on the accounts that matter, and where Lusha earns a second line on the invoice.

The run itself still has a fixed shape. Build the list, resolve and verify a mailbox for every person on it, then send. RevenueFlow runs one message per campaign, so there are no bump steps and no thread replies scheduled behind the first send. A prospect who does not answer gets re-approached later in 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.

Reading the reply and booking the meeting sit outside both products. A meeting counts when it matches criteria agreed in writing before launch, which is a commercial decision rather than a feature, and it is the number worth measuring either purchase against.

Pricing Comparison

Apollo.io Pricing

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

Lusha Pricing

Source: Lusha Pricing

Reading the Two Price Shapes Together

Both publish, and both have an annual column worth reading before the monthly one. 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 upfront, and $65 and $99 billed monthly, with Organization annual only. Lusha publishes Starter at $49.90 a month or $37.45 billed yearly, Pro at $69.90 or $52.45, and Premium at $399.90 or $299.95.

Two things follow. Lusha's yearly discount is 25 percent on every plan, and yearly billing is also what turns the credits into a single upfront grant, so a monthly Lusha subscription is an expensive way to hold optionality. And Apollo's cheapest paid seat carries more credits a year than Lusha's Pro tier, on a platform that also sends. Lusha's Pro card adds 2 free seats and Premium 5, and a phone number costs 5 credits against 1 for a verified email.

Plan	Monthly	Yearly	Credits
Starter, 1 seat	$49.90	$37.45	400 a month, or 4,800 a year
Pro, 2 free seats	$69.90	$52.45	600 a month, or 7,200 a year
Premium, 5 free seats	$399.90	$299.95	3,400 a month, or 40,800 a year

What One Year of This Stack Actually Costs

The numbers below are invented for the example. The prices are the ones each vendor publishes.

Two Apollo Basic seats billed annually are $98 a month and $1,176 for the year, carrying 60,000 credits across the two seats.

One Lusha Pro plan billed yearly is $52.45 a month, so $629.40 for the year, carrying 7,200 credits. The stack is $1,805.40 a year, and Lusha adds 7,200 credits to an allowance that already stood at 60,000.

That arithmetic is the argument against buying it for volume. The argument for buying it is workflow: if reps spend their day inside LinkedIn rather than inside a list builder, the extension is where the work actually happens, and 7,200 reveals a year is a reasonable individual allowance.

Note what paying monthly costs on the same plan. $69.90 a month is $838.80 for the year against $629.40 billed yearly, a difference of $209.40 for the same 7,200 credits a year. On Premium the same gap is $4,798.80 against $3,599.40. The billing column is worth more attention than the tier choice on this vendor.

Feature Highlights

Apollo's pricing page lists, from Basic up, unlimited sequences, a deliverability suite with email warmup, waterfall and job change enrichment, CRM integrations, website visitor identification and a US dialer that draws on credits. Lusha's lists verified emails and phones, automated email sequences and call recordings with AI insights from its Free plan, then lookalikes, bulk enrichment and an AI assistant on Starter, and an API, CSV enrichment, signals and webhooks on Pro.

Where the Two Actually Overlap

Both hold B2B contact data, both run a LinkedIn extension, both do CSV enrichment and both carry intent signals of some kind, so the overlap is real and larger than the category labels imply. Apollo's plan cards then add an entire sending stack: unlimited sequences from Basic, a deliverability suite with email warmup, domain and mailbox purchasing, and a dialer that draws on credits.

Lusha's pricing page now lists automated email sequences from its Free plan, so both touch sending, but the comparison is still not symmetric: Apollo's plan cards carry a whole sending stack, from deliverability tooling to mailbox purchasing, where Lusha's carry one line. The honest framing is that Apollo covers the whole run and Lusha covers one habit inside it particularly well, and whether that habit is worth a separate subscription depends on how the team actually works rather than on a feature table.

Integration Ecosystem

Apollo's pricing page lists CRM integrations and prospecting extensions for Gmail and Salesforce. Lusha's lists its extension on LinkedIn, CRMs, any website and Google calendar with Gmail, direct export to CRM, and an API, webhooks and MCP. If the sequencer you would keep is Salesloft rather than Apollo, the Salesloft alternatives page covers that side of the stack.

When to Choose Which

Reps work from lists and sequences

Apollo alone usually covers it: the seat searches, enriches and sends, with 30,000 credits a year on Basic.

Reps prospect inside LinkedIn all day

Add Lusha for the extension, on yearly billing: Pro is $52.45 a month against $69.90 monthly.

The question is coverage

Test rows the incumbent already missed through the other's free tier, 40 credits a month on Lusha.

Read that split as a question about which gap is open rather than about which product is better. Lusha 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?

Both is defensible, and it is a workflow decision rather than a coverage one.

Apollo first, because it produces and sends the wave. Lusha second when reps prospect by hand inside LinkedIn and the extension is where they live. Buying the extension habit for a team that works from lists and sequences is buying a motion nobody performs.

The coverage argument for the second line is weaker than it looks. Both index the same broad B2B population, so the incremental rows are usually smaller than expected. Test it the only way that gives an answer: take a few hundred accounts Apollo already returned empty and run them through Lusha's free tier, which grants 40 credits a month, before committing to $629.40 a year.

If the second line does get bought, buy it yearly. Paying monthly on Lusha Pro costs $209.40 more a year for the same yearly allowance.

Using Both Together

Many sales teams use both a sales engagement platform and a data enrichment tool as part of their complete workflow. Apollo.io handles outreach orchestration while Lusha covers lead sourcing and data.

Since both pricing pages list CRM integrations or direct export to CRM, connecting them in your workflow is straightforward.

Rolling It Out Without Breaking the Run

Run the free tier against failed rows first. Forty credits a month is small, and it is exactly enough to answer whether the paid plan would find anything Apollo did not.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

Working from filtered lists and sequences: Apollo alone usually covers it. Prospecting by hand inside LinkedIn all day: add Lusha, on yearly billing. Deciding between the two on coverage: test on rows the incumbent already missed, not on a fresh sample.

Related Reading

• Best Apollo.io Alternatives in 2026
• Best Lusha Alternatives in 2026
• Apollo.io vs Outreach: Sales Engagement Platform Comparison
• Apollo.io vs Salesloft: Sales Engagement Platform Comparison
• Apollo.io vs Lusha: Which B2B Data Enrichment Platform Fits Your Sales Stack?

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.