Clearbit alternatives, sorted by why you are leaving
Clearbit did not get worse. It got absorbed: the standalone API is now HubSpot data enrichment, included with paid HubSpot seats, and you need one of those seats to touch it. 4 replacements below, each one matched to a specific reason.
If you are a HubSpot customer on a paid Starter seat or above and the enriched rows never leave HubSpot, the alternative to Clearbit is Clearbit under its new name, HubSpot data enrichment, and it uses no HubSpot Credits. If you need an independent enrichment API, People Data Labs is the closest like-for-like for person and company records, and the one pick here whose standard terms cover showing its data inside a product you sell. Apollo is the cheap answer for contact enrichment at $0.0196 a credit, and TheirStack replaces the technographic half with job postings priced per company. None of the four ships Clearbit's form shortening or IP-based visitor reveal, so list which Clearbit features you actually used before you move.
Prices and limits for every option below are read off the vendor's own page. These are the Clearbit competitors that each answer a named problem.
The 3 reasons people actually leave
If none of these is your situation, the honest answer is that you should probably stay, and the Clearbit API review covers what you already have. The 23 providers in the Enrichment APIs listing are where these replacements come from.
1 · It cannot be bought on its own any more
clearbit.com now reads "Clearbit has joined HubSpot!" and offers a customer login rather than a signup. The enrichment now runs inside HubSpot as data enrichment, first launched as Breeze Intelligence, authenticated through HubSpot rather than a Clearbit key. That is usually where a search for Clearbit alternatives or clearbit competitors starts: a renewal, a new project or a new company where the old standalone contract is no longer on offer.
2 · The price moved into a HubSpot seat
HubSpot says data enrichment does not consume HubSpot Credits. It is available on paid Starter, Professional and Enterprise subscriptions, and on Smart CRM from Professional, so the cost of Clearbit-style enrichment is now a paid HubSpot seat rather than a meter. That is cheap if you were going to buy the seat anyway and a poor trade if all you wanted was an enrichment call. Intent signals are the part that does spend credits, 10 a company a month.
3 · The data now has to land in HubSpot
HubSpot data enrichment fills in HubSpot contact and company records for HubSpot users. A pipeline that writes to Salesforce, a warehouse or your own application has no standalone route to the same data. The HubSpot developer reference page this directory fetched for Breeze Intelligence on 8 October 2026 returned a 404 noting that API reference content had moved, which tells you where the product now sits: inside the CRM, not beside it.
4 Clearbit alternatives, and what each one fixes
Ordered by how closely each one answers the reasons above, not by price.
| Provider | Entry price | Unit cost | Free tier | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearbit | $20/HubSpot seat/mo | Not sold by the unit | Not sold standalone. Requires a paid HubSpot seat. | Baseline |
| People Data Labs | $98/mo | $0.28 per record | Free plan, up to 100 credits per month with contact data obfuscated | Best for building on top of |
| Apollo API | $49/seat/mo | $0.0196 per credit | Free plan with API access, 900 credits per seat per year granted monthly, so 75 a month | Best all-in-one GTM API |
| HubSpot API | Free tier | $0 free tier | Free CRM including API access | Best free CRM endpoint |
| TheirStack | $49/mo | $0.0327 per API credit, entry plan | A free trial with company and API credits, no card required | Best for hiring and technology signal with filter depth |
Read from each vendor's own pricing page on 24 October 2026.
The case for each one
Each one below is matched to a reason rather than scored, and each one names what you give up by taking it. A replacement with no downside is a replacement nobody has actually run.
People Data Labs
The closest independent replacement: person and company records under one key, a published price, and standard terms that cover showing its data inside your own product.
Clearbit was usually bought for two jobs, enriching a form fill with company data and enriching a contact. People Data Labs covers both as datasets, person, company, job title and school, behind one API key in the X-Api-Key header. Unlike HubSpot data enrichment it is a standalone contract, so the rows can land in Salesforce, a warehouse or an app of your own rather than only on a HubSpot record.
Self-Serve starts at $98 a month from 350 credits, which is about $0.28 a record, and Enterprise adds custom volumes, bulk data and Data License Feeds. The free plan gives 100 credits a month with emails and phones masked. That is enough to check that the company fields you used to get from Clearbit come back for your accounts, and not enough to judge contact quality.
The license is the part no other pick here offers. People Data Labs' standard subscription agreement licenses you to show its data to your own customers inside your product, which few other self-serve plans here grant by default and nothing in HubSpot's terms grants an enrichment customer. It is not a resale license: you may not resell the data, give your users programmatic access to a substantial part of it, or build anything that competes with PDL, and those terms must flow down to your customers. Rate limits are per key and per endpoint and reported in the response headers rather than published as one number, so design for a batch and read them.
What you give up
Clearbit's packaged inbound tooling: the IP-based visitor reveal, form shortening and the 6-digit NAICS, GICS and SIC industry codes Clearbit advertised. People Data Labs sells records, not a form widget, and there is no MCP server. At $0.28 a record it is also the dearest unit on this page.
When it is the wrong answer
A HubSpot team enriching inbound leads that never leave HubSpot. HubSpot data enrichment already does that inside the CRM you pay for, and paying fourteen times Apollo's rate for a license to show data in a product you will never build is the wrong trade.
Read the review · Clearbit vs People Data Labs
Apollo API
Contact and company enrichment at $0.0196 a credit, a free plan with real API access, and nothing charged when a lookup finds nothing.
If what you used Clearbit for was turning an email address into a person and a company, Apollo does it as a standalone API with a published rate card. Basic is $49 a seat a month billed annually and carries 30,000 credits a seat a year, which is 2,500 a month at $0.0196 each, and an email costs one credit.
The free plan carries full API access at 900 credits a seat a year, granted monthly, so 75 a month. That is enough to run a sample of the inbound leads Clearbit used to enrich and compare fill rates field by field before anybody signs anything. HubSpot data enrichment cannot be tested that way without a paid HubSpot seat.
Apollo returns firmographic and technographic fields alongside the contact, its people search spends no credits, and an enrichment that finds nothing costs nothing. It also writes sequences, contacts and tasks at 0 credits and ships an MCP server at mcp.apollo.io/mcp, which Clearbit never had.
What you give up
The inbound tooling. Apollo has no IP-based visitor reveal and no form shortening, the two Clearbit features marketing teams leaned on most. Its credits are attached to a seat and granted per year, so a pipeline with no human in it still buys a user.
When it is the wrong answer
A marketing team whose Clearbit use was website visitor reveal and shorter forms rather than enrichment calls. Apollo is a sales data API, and that job stays inside HubSpot.
HubSpot API
If you are already a HubSpot customer, the alternative to Clearbit is Clearbit: the enrichment now runs inside HubSpot as data enrichment, included with paid seats and spending no HubSpot Credits.
The data moved with the brand. Enrichment runs inside HubSpot on Starter, Professional and Enterprise subscriptions and uses no HubSpot Credits, so for a team whose records already live on HubSpot contacts and companies there is no second vendor, no second key and no sync to maintain. That is a real simplification rather than a compromise, as long as HubSpot is where the rows end up.
The cost is the seat rather than a meter. Starter lists at $20 a seat a month, and HubSpot runs a $7 offer for new customers at the time of writing. HubSpot Credits still matter for the adjacent features: intent signals cost 10 credits a company a month, and smart properties consume credits too. Credits reset monthly and expire, and HubSpot lets you cap spend at account, feature and action level.
The CRM API itself is free: full object access over REST on the free tier at 100 requests per 10 seconds, with two official MCP servers. Enrichment itself runs in the app and on HubSpot's own records, so what an engineer gets is the enriched properties on contacts and companies, read back through that API.
What you give up
Independence. HubSpot data enrichment works on HubSpot records for accounts on paid subscriptions, and nothing in HubSpot's terms lets you put enriched rows inside a product you sell. If you buy HubSpot Credits for intent, additional capacity packs can only be canceled or downgraded at the end of the commitment term, so overbuying is a year-long mistake.
When it is the wrong answer
Anyone not on a paid HubSpot seat, and any pipeline whose destination is Salesforce, a warehouse or your own application. For those, this pick is not an alternative at all.
TheirStack
Replaces the technographic half of a Clearbit record with something Clearbit never sold: job postings as a signal, from $49 a month for 1,500 API credits, 3 credits a company.
Clearbit's company records carried the tech stack, and a lot of teams scored accounts on that field. TheirStack sells technographics read from job postings, plus the postings themselves, as rows over an API with a Bearer token. A company hiring for a tool it does not use yet is a stronger buying signal than a static stack list.
Pricing is published and comes in two currencies. The app sells one-time packs from $109 for 1,000 company credits. The API runs on its own subscription, from $49 a month for 1,500 API credits, about $0.0327 each and $1.10 per 1,000 at the top of the ladder, and a company costs 3 of them. Unused paid credits roll over for 12 months, packs and subscriptions alike.
There are free credits on signup with no card, which is enough to look up the accounts you care about and check whether the stack data matches what Clearbit used to return for them. Rate limits are published per plan, and a documented bulk search endpoint loads a target list in one pass.
What you give up
Contact data entirely. TheirStack returns companies, jobs and technologies, not people, emails or phone numbers, so it replaces one field of a Clearbit record rather than the record.
When it is the wrong answer
Anyone who used Clearbit to put a name, title and email on a lead. Pair it with Apollo or People Data Labs for that, or leave it out.
What you would actually pay, on each one
Every provider on this page publishes a rate card, so the real numbers can sit next to each other rather than behind a summary. The plan you want is the one whose included volume covers a normal month for you, not the cheapest one on the page.
Clearbit
Clearbit publishes 3 tiers, none of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $20 to $75.
Starter
- Data enrichment included, no credits used
- Core Seat lists enriched data and Smart CRM
- 500 HubSpot Credits a month for intent and AI features
Professional
- Data enrichment included, no credits used
- 3,000 HubSpot Credits a month, 5,000 with Data Hub or Customer Platform
- Credits reset monthly, no rollover
Enterprise
- Data enrichment included, no credits used
- 5,000 HubSpot Credits a month, 10,000 with Data Hub or Customer Platform
- Extra credits at $0.010 each, or $10 per 1,000
People Data Labs
People Data Labs publishes 3 tiers, one of them free.
Free
- Full access to the Person APIs for testing
- Contact data is obfuscated, so emails and phones are masked
- No commitment, sign up and go
Self-Serve
- Contact data included and unmasked
- Access to premium fields
- Monthly or annual subscription
- CSV enrichment and email support
Enterprise
- Custom volumes and annual contracts
- Access to all APIs, plus Data License Feeds
- Formal data testing before you commit
- Additional field bundles
Apollo API
Apollo publishes 4 tiers, one of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $49 to $119.
Free
- Full API access, not a trial of it
- Granted monthly, so 75 credits a month in practice
- 2 sequences and basic filters
Basic
- $588 a seat a year, credits granted upfront and pooled across the team
- 2,500 credits a month, at $0.0196 each
- Annual billing saves 24% against paying monthly
Professional
- 4,000 credits a month, at $0.0198 each
- AI lead scoring and multi-touch outreach
Organization
- 72,000 credits a seat a year, so 6,000 a month
- $0.0198 a credit, so the rate is flat across every paid tier
- The three-seat minimum makes $357 a month the real floor
HubSpot API
HubSpot publishes 4 tiers, one of them free.
Free
- Full CRM object access over the API
- Free Marketing, Sales, Service, Content, Data and Revenue tools
- 100 calls per 10s, 250,000 a day
- No credit card required
Starter
- Same API, same limits as Free
- 500 HubSpot Credits included
- 1,000 marketing contacts
- From $7/seat/mo on the current new-customer offer
Professional
- 190 calls per 10s per app
- 625,000 calls a day per account
- Where the limit increase starts to matter
Enterprise
- 190 calls per 10s per app
- 1,000,000 calls a day per account
- Highest published daily ceiling
TheirStack
TheirStack publishes 11 tiers, none of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $49 to $5,500.
1,500 API credits
- 1,500 jobs, or 500 companies, or any mix
- $32.67 per 1,000 credits
- Unused paid credits roll over for 12 months
5,000
- $20.00 per 1,000 credits
10,000
- $16.90 per 1,000 credits
20,000
- $12.00 per 1,000 credits
50,000
- $8.00 per 1,000 credits
5,000,000
- $1.10 per 1,000 credits, the floor of the ladder
5 steps between the fifth and the last are not drawn here. The cost model below reads all 11.
Read the included volume before the headline price. A plan that costs twice as much and carries five times the credits is the cheaper plan, and on this page that is the usual case rather than the exception.
What each one costs at your volume
Clearbit first, then every replacement. The model picks the cheapest published plan that covers your volume on each one, which is the comparison a row of entry prices cannot make.
Clearbit
Priced per seat, so the bill moves with headcount rather than with volume.
People Data Labs
Priced on the volume you use, so the plan that covers a normal month is the one that decides the bill.
Apollo API
Priced on the volume you use, so the plan that covers a normal month is the one that decides the bill.
HubSpot API
Priced per seat, so the bill moves with headcount rather than with volume.
TheirStack
Priced on the volume you use, so the plan that covers a normal month is the one that decides the bill.
Plans are read from each vendor's own pricing page and the model picks the cheapest one that covers you, so these are list prices on the billing term each vendor publishes, annual where that is how it prices, before any discount you negotiate.
What a year costs at three volumes
The same plan-fit arithmetic as the model above, run out to a year, because an annual number is what a budget actually asks for.
Clearbit and HubSpot are priced per seat, so those columns do not move with volume. The figure shown is 3 seats for a year.
| A year at | Clearbit | People Data Labs | Apollo API | HubSpot API | TheirStack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 a month | $720 Starter | $3,360 Self-Serve | $588 Basic | $720 Starter | $1,200 5,000 |
| 10,000 a month | $720 Starter | $33,600 Self-Serve | $2,352 Basic | $720 Starter | $4,800 50,000 |
| 50,000 a month | $720 Starter | $168,000 Self-Serve | $11,760 Basic | $720 Starter | $10,800 200,000 |
These are list prices on the published plan that covers each volume, on the billing term each vendor publishes, so they are the number before you negotiate.
Which replacement is yours
Answer what matters most and the lean appears below. Every option is read from the records on this page, and staying on Clearbit is one of the possible answers.
Each answer leans one way. The recommendation appears here once you have picked at least two.
A tool like this can only weigh what is on the page. It does not know your workload, and the one test that does is the bake-off on this page: your own rows, queries or records, run on the cheapest entry each side offers.
Where an answer leans on a certification or an integration, it means that vendor publishes it on the pages this directory read, which is not the same as the other one lacking it. The sources are listed at the foot of the page.
Where the data comes from, and what you may do with it
The question that arrives late and expensively is who is allowed to hold the data. A migration is the moment to check it, because you are signing a new contract anyway.
| Provider | Fields returned | Coverage | Compliance | Redistribution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearbit | Firmographics, Technographics, Intent and news | Global | GDPR DPA SOC 2 Type II CCPA | Not stated |
| People Data Labs | Work email, Personal email, Mobile phone, Firmographics, LinkedIn profile | Global | GDPR DPA SOC 2 Type II CCPA | Not stated |
| Apollo API | Work email, Mobile phone, Firmographics, Technographics, Job postings, Intent and news, LinkedIn profile, CRM records | Global | GDPR DPA SOC 2 Type II CCPA | Not stated |
| TheirStack | Job postings, Technographics, Firmographics, Intent and news | Global | GDPR DPA | Not stated |
None of these states a redistribution position on its pricing or docs pages. Internally that never matters. Put the rows in something your customers can see and it becomes the question your legal team asks first.
Two practical notes that apply to every provider on this page. A compliance badge describes the vendor rather than your use of it, so a GDPR DPA does not give you a lawful basis for the outreach you send. And every one of these vendors runs its own opt-out, which means a person who asks you to delete their record has to be removed from your copy as well as from theirs.
Moving off Clearbit
Written against People Data Labs, the first pick above, because the steps are the same whichever one you take and the specifics are what make them useful. Swap the name and the order still holds.
Measure the thing you are about to lose
Run 500 rows you already have through Clearbit and record the match rate, the fields that came back populated and the cost. Without that number a migration cannot be judged, because every provider looks cheaper per unit than the one you are paying for today.
Check which fields change
People Data Labs does not return technographics and intent and news, which Clearbit does. If anything downstream reads those fields, the switch changes your pipeline as well as your vendor.
Rewrite the auth and the limits, in that order
Clearbit works through HubSpot, not a standalone Clearbit key. People Data Labs uses an API key in the X-Api-Key header.
The limits are the part that bites later. Clearbit's limits: no separate meter: enrichment runs on paid HubSpot seats and uses no credits. Intent signals spend HubSpot Credits, which reset monthly.
People Data Labs' limits: per key, fixed window, separate per endpoint. Reported in the response headers. A loop tuned to the first will either crawl or get throttled on the second.
Run both for one billing cycle
Keep the old key live and route a slice of real traffic to the new one. A month is the shortest honest test, because credit expiry, rollover and the overage rate only show up at renewal and those are where the surprises live.
Cancel on the renewal date
Credits on most of these plans do not survive a downgrade. Check what happens to the balance you have already paid for, and time the switch so you are not buying the same records twice.
The step people skip is the first one, and it is the only one that cannot be done after the fact. Once the old key is off you have nothing to compare the new match rate against, so a provider that is quietly worse on your segment looks like a provider that is fine.
What practitioners say about People Data Labs
Transcribed as written and linked to the thread. A Reddit claim is a signal rather than a fact, so nothing here is the only source for any figure on this page.
The accuracy spread between vendors is smaller than the one inside your own list
it's nearly all the same at the end of the day... there's a marginal 5-10% difference between the vendors but overall 55-65% data accuracy / validity overall. [...] have a team of 20+ (or however many) outsourced data integrity workers through fiver or whatnot... it's what the rich tech companies like AirBnB and Uber do to have the most up to date data...
r/SalesOperations · November 2024 · 3 points
The range here lands on the assumption the waterfall stack on this site is modeled with, which is a 55% first pass. That figure is labeled as modeled on every page that uses it, because no provider in this category publishes a match rate you can hold it to, so an independent practitioner arriving at 55 to 65% is the closest thing to corroboration available. It also makes the case for the waterfall itself: if the best single source clears about 60%, the second provider is not a luxury.
The 5 to 10% spread between vendors is this commenter's estimate and nothing here verifies it, and the thread it comes from is a request for benchmarks that were never published. Read it as a reason to run your own test on your own rows rather than as a reason to skip one. It argues against paying a premium for coverage claims, which is a different question from paying a premium for a redistribution license.
14 threads read on 13 October 2026, searched by vendor name. Scores and dates are the comment's own. Nothing here is the only source for a price or a limit on this site: every figure in the tables above comes from a vendor's own page.
What practitioners say about Apollo
The one part of this page that is not a vendor claim. The comment below makes its point in crude words, so we summarize it in our own words and link the thread. A Reddit claim is a signal rather than a fact, so nothing here is the only source for a figure on this page.
The rate limit, not the credit price, is what people actually hit
In our words: A practitioner building on the API says the rate limits are what their team hit, that they got past them by routing requests across three Apollo accounts, and that Apollo charges per request even when a lookup returns nothing.
r/gtmengineering · May 2026 · summarized rather than quoted
Two halves worth separating. The limit is real and it is on this page: 200 requests a minute, 400 an hour and 2,000 a day on Basic, with enrichment on a separate 1,000 a minute and no hourly or daily cap. That split is why a bulk job and a per-row loop feel like different products.
The charge-on-no-output half needs care, because Apollo publishes 0 credits when nothing is found and that matches what we read. What a miss does spend is a request against the rate limit, and when the limit is the binding constraint that is the cost you feel. Pooling accounts to get round a published limit is a terms question before it is an engineering one.
11 threads read on 13 October 2026, searched by vendor name. Scores and dates are the comment's own. Nothing here is the only source for a price or a limit on this site: every figure in the tables above comes from a vendor's own page.
What practitioners say about HubSpot
Transcribed as written and linked to the thread. A Reddit claim is a signal rather than a fact, so nothing here is the only source for any figure on this page.
The per-app rate limit is why people end up running several private apps
API limits are not being respected or the sync isn't really set up in a way that someone with knowledge of the api. They may not be using a queue system. They haven't optimized and paid attention to api limits. [...] This may need to be done using multiple private app keys because you are hitting specific limits. [...] If these updates are happening all at once, batch and import/export APIs are the way to go
r/hubspot · April 2025 · 2 points
This corroborates the shape of HubSpot's limits rather than the numbers. The rate, 100 requests per 10 seconds on Free and Starter and 190 on Professional, is per app, which is exactly why splitting work across several private apps raises throughput at all.
The part that is easy to miss is that the daily cap is not per app, so the same trick does nothing for it. Splitting a sync across three private apps triples the requests a second you can make and shares one daily budget between them, which is a fix for the wrong half of the problem if the daily cap is what you were hitting.
14 threads read on 13 October 2026, searched by vendor name. Scores and dates are the comment's own. Nothing here is the only source for a price or a limit on this site: every figure in the tables above comes from a vendor's own page.
What practitioners say about TheirStack
Transcribed as written and linked to the thread. A Reddit claim is a signal rather than a fact, so nothing here is the only source for any figure on this page.
There is no official job-postings API, which is why this category exists
Job sites don't provide public APIs, they want that ad revenue. There use to be scripts to scrape their HTML but most no longer work. You can search github to find some now mostly abandon projects.
r/cscareerquestions · May 2023 · 12 points
This is the structural reason a provider can charge for job postings at all. The boards publish no publicly usable API because the listings are their advertising inventory, so the data reaches you either through a scraper you maintain yourself or through somebody who maintains one for you. TheirStack is the second option with a rate card attached, and the rate card is what you are really comparing against your own engineering time.
It is a 2023 comment and the abandoned-project problem has not improved since, which is the part to weigh. The question for your own build is not whether you can scrape a board this week but whether you want to own that maintenance the next time the markup changes.
14 threads read on 13 October 2026, searched by vendor name. Scores and dates are the comment's own. Nothing here is the only source for a price or a limit on this site: every figure in the tables above comes from a vendor's own page.
Should you actually switch?
The short answer is at the top of this page. Before you act on it, run the test below, because it is the cheapest way to find out whether that answer holds for you.
No provider in this category publishes a match rate you can hold them to, so run the same 500 rows through a free tier, a trial or a small paid top-up on each, verify every result set, and divide spend by survivors. Your own list is the only evidence worth acting on, it takes half a day, and it changes the decision often enough to be worth it.
Head to head, and in a stack
People Data Labs vs Clearbit
CompareOne of these is still a product you can buy.
Compare them →Clearbit vs Cognism
CompareOne of these is no longer sold on its own and the other will not tell you its price. Both end in a sales process, at two different companies.
Compare them →Clearbit vs ZoomInfo
CompareThe two enrichment brands every RevOps team used to shortlist: one is now part of a HubSpot seat, and the other publishes a self-serve rate but quotes the mobile number.
Compare them →All alternatives
57Every provider in the directory that teams regularly try to replace, with the reasons and the replacements for each.
Browse the hub →Before you switch, try the waterfall in Clay.
Clay runs a waterfall across 150+ data providers from one table, without a separate contract with each. A lookup that finds nothing costs no data credit, and the free plan includes 500 actions a month.
Frontal is a Clay Elite Studio Partner.
Switching from Clearbit, answered
What is the best Clearbit alternative?
It depends on why you are leaving, which is how this page is organized rather than ranked. The first pick here is People Data Labs, which this directory lists as the best for building on top of, at $98/mo. The case for it, and what you give up, is in the section above.
Is there a free alternative to Clearbit?
Yes, 3 of the replacements here do. People Data Labs: Free plan, up to 100 credits per month with contact data obfuscated. Apollo: Free plan with API access, 900 credits per seat per year granted monthly, so 75 a month. HubSpot: Free CRM including API access.
What is the cheapest Clearbit alternative?
Apollo, whose free plan carries the API and whose paid credits are $0.0196 each. HubSpot data enrichment itself needs a paid Starter seat, $20 a month, which is the cheapest route only if the rows stay in HubSpot.
How were these alternatives chosen?
By the reason teams leave, not by a score. The page opens with the reasons teams leave and matches a replacement to each one.