--- title: "Clay vs FullEnrich: which one, and why" description: "Clay and FullEnrich compared on unit cost, billing model, data returned, license and MCP support. Verified pricing, October 2026." url: https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/clay-vs-fullenrich updated: 2026-10-25 --- Head to head · Verified 8 to 19 Oct 2026 # Clay vs *FullEnrich* [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) ## Clay Best orchestration layer $167/mo vs ## FullEnrich Best waterfall without Clay $55/mo Short answer Same idea, opposite packaging. Clay gives you the waterfall plus a table, branching logic and research steps that non-engineers can change. FullEnrich gives you the waterfall as a single API call with a single bill and nothing else. If the logic changes weekly, pay for Clay; if it does not, FullEnrich is the endpoint half of the same trade. Side by side ## Where they actually differ Every value comes from the same record that drives the [Enrichment APIs](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis) listing, so this table cannot disagree with the cards. Accented tags are data one provider returns and the other does not. | Compare | [Clay](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/clay-api-review) | [FullEnrich](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/fullenrich-api-review) | | --- | --- | --- | | What it is | One table that fans out to 150+ providers | Twenty-five sources behind one endpoint | | Entry price | $167/mo | $55/mo | | Unit cost | $0.045 per data credit | $0.055 per credit | | Billing model | Subscription Credit packs Free tier | Subscription Credit packs | | Free tier | Free plan, 500 actions and 100 data credits per month | 50-credit trial, no card. Then 1,000 credits a month at $0.055 each. | | GTM motion covered | Source Enrich Signal | Enrich Verify | | Data returned | Work email Personal email Mobile phone Firmographics Technographics Job postings Job changes Intent and news LinkedIn profile | Work email Personal email Mobile phone LinkedIn profile | | MCP server | Yes https://api.clay.com/v3/mcp | Yes https://mcp.fullenrich.com/mcp | | Interfaces | REST API MCP server Webhooks Bulk or async Native in Clay | REST API MCP server Webhooks Bulk or async Native in Clay n8n node | | Auth | Optional token on a webhook source. The HTTP API column uses the other service's key | Bearer token | | Rate limits | Concurrency governed by plan, not a published per-minute cap | 60 API calls a minute, 100 contacts per bulk, 100 concurrent per workspace | | Coverage | Global | Global | | Compliance | GDPR DPA SOC 2 Type II | GDPR DPA | | Best for | Best orchestration layer | Best waterfall without Clay | The decision ## Pick each one when ### [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) Clay - The logic changes often and non-engineers own it. - You need research and AI steps alongside enrichment. - You want one interface across 150 providers. ### FullEnrich - You want waterfall coverage inside your own pipeline. - You want one credit price per result, not two meters. - Nobody needs to look at a table. The test that settles it Neither vendor publishes a match rate you could hold them to, so the rate card only tells you half the story. Take 500 rows from the segment you actually sell into, run them through one free tier and one trial, verify both result sets, and divide spend by survivors. Half a day and about $20, and on a close pair it changes the answer often enough to be worth it. Plan by plan ## What each one costs, tier by tier Both publish a full rate card, so this comparison runs on numbers rather than on adjectives. Clay lists 4 tiers and FullEnrich lists 4. Every figure is read off the vendor's own pricing page, and the pages they came from are listed at the foot of this one. | The short version | Clay | FullEnrich | | --- | --- | --- | | Cheapest paid plan | Launch, $167 | Free trial, 50 | | Tiers published | 4 | 4 | | Free tier | Free plan, 500 actions and 100 data credits per month | 50-credit trial, no card. Then 1,000 credits a month at $0.055 each. | | Unit cost at entry | $0.0452 per data credit | $0.055 per credit | The cheapest paid plan is rarely the plan you end up on, because what moves you up a tier is usually volume rather than a feature. The two rate cards below are what you are choosing between. ### [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) Clay Clay publishes 4 tiers, one of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $167 to Custom. #### Free $0 500 actions/mo - 100 data credits a month, 1,200 a year - Unlimited seats and tables, up to 200 rows per table - Multi-provider waterfalls and Claygent - Bring your own API key #### Launch $167 /mo, from 15,000 actions - 2,500 data credits a month, 30,000 a year, unused ones roll over up to 2x - Phone number enrichment - Job change and other signals, unlimited Audiences search - Send through the Clay Sequencer or an integration #### Growth $446 /mo, from 40,000 actions - 6,000 data credits a month, 72,000 a year, unused ones roll over up to 2x - Integrate with any HTTP API. This is the tier that unlocks it - Auto-sync and enrich CRM, warehouse sync - Web intent signals, webhook-driven automation #### Enterprise Custom quote - Custom action and data credit volume, and Clay API access for calling Clay from your own code - Auto-delete, so one webhook takes unlimited submissions ### FullEnrich FullEnrich publishes 4 tiers, one of them free, and the paid ladder runs from $55 to 12 months. #### Free trial 50 credits, no card - No credit card required - Earn more credits by inviting team members - Enough to measure your own match rate #### Entry $55 /mo, 1,000 credits - $0.055 a credit - 1,000 work emails, or 100 mobiles, or 333 personal emails - Credits roll over 3 months on monthly billing #### Higher volume Lower rate per credit - The per-credit price falls as volume rises - A calculator on the pricing page sizes it - Renew early or move up a plan to get the better rate #### Annual 12 months of rollover - Rollover extends from 3 months to 12 - The option that suits lumpy agency volume Cost model ## What Clay and FullEnrich cost at your volume Put your own volume in. The model picks the cheapest published plan that covers it on each side, which is the question a rate card cannot answer and the one that decides the bill. ### [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) Clay Priced on the volume you use, so the plan that covers a normal month is the one that decides the bill. Plan that covers it **Growth** Monthly **$446** Twelve months **$5,352** Included **40,000 actions** Your rate at this volume **$0.0446 per action** API gate **costs you $279 a month over Launch** ### FullEnrich Priced on the volume you use, so the plan that covers a normal month is the one that decides the bill. Plan that covers it **Past the published ladder** Largest published **Entry, 1,000 credits** At your volume **Quoted** Ask for **the per-credit rate above 1,000** 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 before any discount you negotiate and before annual billing, which most of these vendors discount. Twelve months ## 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. Every column moves with volume, because all of these meter usage rather than seats. | A year at | Clay | FullEnrich | | --- | --- | --- | | 1,000 a month | $5,352 Growth | $660 Entry | | 10,000 a month | $5,352 Growth | Quoted | | 50,000 a month | Quoted | Quoted | 2 of the 2 providers here publish enough to be put in this table. These are list prices on the published plan that covers each volume, so they are the number before you negotiate and before annual billing, which most of these vendors discount by between a fifth and a half. In practice ## How this plays out once it is running These solve the same problem at different altitudes. [FullEnrich](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/fullenrich-api-review) is a waterfall you call. [Clay](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/clay-api-review) is a waterfall you configure, sitting inside a table with branching logic, AI research steps and a permissions model. If your enrichment logic is stable, the table is overhead you are paying for monthly. The honest test is who changes the logic. If it is an engineer, FullEnrich is an endpoint doing the same job on one bill. If it is a RevOps lead who needs to add a condition on Thursday without filing a ticket, Clay is not overhead, it is the entire point, and $167 a month is cheap against the alternative. Strengths ## What each one is genuinely good at Not a feature list. These are the things that make somebody keep paying after the novelty has worn off, which is a different question from what the marketing page leads with. ### [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) Clay #### The logic is editable by somebody who cannot deploy code Branching conditions, research steps and a permissions model built for the person who owns the list. FullEnrich is an endpoint, so whoever owns the enrichment rules owns a piece of your codebase instead. If those are different people, that is the whole comparison. #### Research and AI steps alongside the lookups Clay can ask a provider an arbitrary question and keep the answer in a column, which is a different capability from finding a contact. FullEnrich finds contacts, and no amount of per-result pricing substitutes for a step that reads a company's careers page. #### About 150 providers behind one interface Against FullEnrich's 25 sources. Both are waterfalls and one is substantially wider, which matters on exactly the segments a waterfall is bought for. ### FullEnrich #### One credit price per field, on the result A work email is 1 credit, a personal email 3, a mobile 10, at $0.055 a credit, and nothing is charged when nothing comes back. Clay does not charge for a miss either, but a hit there runs two meters, an action for the work and the provider's data credits for the data, so the price of a found contact depends on which provider answered. #### One endpoint, one bill, inside your own pipeline No table to open and nobody to train. For a build where the enrichment happens inside your code and nobody is going to configure anything, FullEnrich is the same idea with the interface removed. #### Verification included, and landlines cost nothing Verification is free when bundled with enrichment and 0.25 credits alone, and a landline result is not charged at all. Those two lines remove a second vendor and the most annoying category of wasted spend. Limits ## Where each one falls down Every provider on this site has a case it handles badly, and the people who find out are the ones who bought it for that case. These are the ones worth knowing before you sign rather than after. ### [Visit Clay](https://go.frontal.so/clay) Clay #### Two meters to forecast This is the easiest thing to misread about Clay. A found contact costs an action, $0.0036 on annual Launch, plus the data credits that provider charges, $0.0452 each, and the credit count varies by provider. Nothing is charged for a lookup that returns nothing. Cap the rows a table runs on before pointing a large input list at it. #### The HTTP API is gated at the Growth tier $446 a month against $167 for Launch. If calling arbitrary endpoints is why you want Clay rather than its interface, the higher figure is your real entry price. #### There is no API key in the shape you expect An optional token on a webhook source, and the HTTP API column uses the other service's key rather than one of Clay's. Below Enterprise, where the pricing page lists Clay API access, you are integrating with a table that calls out, not an endpoint that answers. ### FullEnrich #### The most expensive work email in this directory $0.055 a credit. It is the right price for the residue of a list and the wrong price for the whole list, so running it first rather than last is the standard way to overspend with it. #### No workbench, and no research steps FullEnrich finds contacts. It does not branch, score, or ask a provider a question you invented, so a motion that needs any of those keeps needing something else. #### Modest limits and a small entry allowance Sixty API calls a minute, 100 contacts per bulk request, 100 concurrent jobs per workspace, and 1,000 credits on the $55 entry plan. A waterfall is latency-bound underneath anyway, and the allowance is small enough to clear in a week at real volume. Both ## Using Clay and FullEnrich together A two-way comparison assumes the answer is one of them. On this pairing it often is not, and the arrangement below is what teams actually end up running. These are the same idea sold to two different buyers, so running both usually means one of them is doing a job the other already does. Where the pairing does earn its place is ordering: cheap single providers first, FullEnrich on the residue inside your pipeline, and Clay only where somebody needs to change the logic without a deploy. The two ways to get the order wrong are running Clay's actions and data credits on rows a single provider would have found, and paying FullEnrich's result rate on an easy list. If both are already in the building, the question to ask is who opens the Clay table. If the honest answer is nobody, you are paying a subscription for a workbench and could have the same coverage as an endpoint. Decide ## Clay or FullEnrich, for you Four questions, answered from the same records as the rest of this page. Nothing is sent anywhere and there is no result to email yourself. Do you need firmographics? Are you buying one step or the whole motion? Do you need SOC 2 Type II published up front? Is there budget approved for this yet? Answer the questions above 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 segment, and the one test that does is the bake-off further down: real rows, cheapest entry on each side, spend divided by survivors. 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. Provenance ## Where the data comes from, and what you may do with it The question that arrives late and expensively is not how good the data is, it is who is allowed to hold it. These are the fields each one returns, the coverage it claims and the compliance it publishes. | Provider | Fields returned | Coverage | Compliance | Redistribution | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | [Clay](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/clay-api-review) | Work email, Personal email, Mobile phone, Firmographics, Technographics, Job postings, Job changes, Intent and news, LinkedIn profile | Global | GDPR DPA SOC 2 Type II | Not stated | | [FullEnrich](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis/fullenrich-api-review) | Work email, Personal email, Mobile phone, LinkedIn profile | 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, not 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. Migration ## Moving between Clay and FullEnrich Most readers of this page are already on one of these two. A swap is four hours of code and a month of watching, and the order below is the one that catches the expensive mistakes while they are still free. 01 ### Measure the thing you are about to lose Run 500 rows you already have through Clay 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. 02 ### Check the fields, not the field count FullEnrich does not return Firmographics, Technographics, Job postings, Job changes and Intent and news, which Clay does. If anything downstream reads firmographics, that is a change to your pipeline and not just to your vendor. 03 ### Rewrite the auth and the limits, in that order Clay authenticates with optional token on a webhook source. The HTTP API column uses the other service's key. FullEnrich uses bearer token. The limits are the part that bites later. Clay rate: Concurrency governed by plan, not a published per-minute cap. FullEnrich rate: 60 API calls a minute, 100 contacts per bulk, 100 concurrent per workspace. A loop tuned to the first will either crawl or get throttled on the second. 04 ### 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. 05 ### Cancel on the renewal date, not before 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 ## What practitioners say about Clay The one part of this page that is not a vendor claim. Quotes are transcribed as written, linked to the thread, and nothing here is the only source for a figure in the tables above. ### Use it as a filter, not as a bulk provider > One thing I've seen with Clay is that it feels expensive when you use it like a bulk data provider, but much more reasonable when you use it as a filter first. I rarely enrich everything. I narrow the list with cheap signals and firmographics, then only run waterfall email/phone on leads that actually look worth it. That shift alone cut my credit usage a lot, and the outreach quality went up because fewer bad leads made it through. At that point you're paying for decisions, not just data. [r/gtmengineering](https://www.reddit.com/r/gtmengineering/comments/1q592xw/what_are_the_best_alternatives_to_clay_that_are/) · January 2026 · 16 points This is the argument the pricing section makes, arrived at from the other direction. The lever that moves a Clay bill is not the rate, it is how many rows ever reach the expensive step. Narrowing on firmographics first costs almost nothing and keeps the paid enrichments for rows worth contacting. It also explains why a team that thinks it wants to leave Clay often does not need to. The complaint is usually the spend, and the fix is usually an ordering change rather than a migration. ### Bringing your own keys is a real line item, not a hack > Working in tech sales at a large 8 figure SaaS, our current setup for the team is as follows: \[...\] We do still have Clay but we bring our own API keys to keep the cost down [r/gtmengineering](https://www.reddit.com/r/gtmengineering/comments/1q592xw/what_are_the_best_alternatives_to_clay_that_are/) · January 2026 · 32 points Clay lets you connect your own provider keys instead of spending its credits on that provider. The team above keeps the workbench and pays the underlying vendors directly, which is the arrangement that makes Clay a router rather than a reseller. Worth knowing before you compare rate cards, because it changes what you are comparing. A Clay bill with your own keys attached is a subscription for the logic; a Clay bill without them is a subscription plus a margin on every lookup. Clay's own documentation is the authority on which integrations accept your key. 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. In a stack ## Where each one sits in a working pipeline Neither of these is bought in isolation. These are the [worked stacks](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/stacks) on this site that use one or both, with the cost run end to end. [Waterfall email enrichment $0.0364 Four providers chained cheapest-first, each taking only what the last one missed, then verification routed per source. → → → → ZB See the arithmetic →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/stacks/waterfall-enrichment) If neither fits ## The wider field for both A two-way comparison assumes the answer is one of these two. Often it is not, and the reason you are comparing them at all points somewhere else entirely: [Clay alternatives](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/alternatives/clay-alternatives) and [FullEnrich alternatives](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/alternatives/fullenrich-alternatives) both start from the reason people leave. [Clay alternatives 4 Clay bills two meters on every row it finds, actions and data credits. That, and paying for a workbench nobody opens, is why teams look elsewhere. See the alternatives →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/alternatives/clay-alternatives) [FullEnrich alternatives 4 The most expensive work email in the directory, and sometimes the only one that finds the row. See the alternatives →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/alternatives/fullenrich-alternatives) [Everything in Enrich 13 The full category these two sit in, filtered by data returned, billing model and entry price. Browse the category →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/enrichment-apis) Keep comparing ## Related comparisons The 26 providers behind every pairing here are in the [main listing](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis). Pairings that share a side with this one: [Clay vs People Data Labs](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/clay-vs-people-data-labs), [FullEnrich vs Findymail](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/fullenrich-vs-findymail) and [Attio vs Clay](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/attio-vs-clay). And: [Clay vs HubSpot](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/clay-vs-hubspot) and [Apollo vs Clay](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/apollo-vs-clay). Every comparison in the directory is on the [compare hub](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare). [vs Apollo API vs Clay One key for the whole motion against a router sitting in front of 150 vendors. Compare them →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/apollo-vs-clay) [vs Clay vs People Data Labs Coverage borrowed from 150 vendors against one dataset you are licensed to redistribute. Compare them →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/clay-vs-people-data-labs) [vs FullEnrich vs Findymail 25 sources behind one call against one source that verifies as it finds. Compare them →](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare/fullenrich-vs-findymail) [See all 67 comparisons](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/compare) ## Comparison pages end at the rate card. *Your list does not.* We run the bake-off on your actual data, pick the provider order, and build the pipeline behind it: waterfall routing, credit ceilings and the write-back that puts a verified contact in front of a rep the same day. [Book a call](https://book.frontal.so) [See the stacks](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis/stacks) Worked with 300+ companies. A senior operator runs your account. FAQ ## Clay and FullEnrich, answered Read from the same records that drive the table above. **Is Clay or FullEnrich cheaper?** On the entry plan it is FullEnrich, $55/mo against Clay at $167/mo. Per unit it is $0.045 per data credit against $0.055 per credit. **Can I try Clay and FullEnrich for free?** Clay: Free plan, 500 actions and 100 data credits per month. FullEnrich: 50-credit trial, no card. Then 1,000 credits a month at $0.055 each. **What are the rate limits on Clay and FullEnrich?** Clay: Concurrency governed by plan, not a published per-minute cap. FullEnrich: 60 API calls a minute, 100 contacts per bulk, 100 concurrent per workspace. **Do Clay and FullEnrich both have MCP servers?** Both do. Clay: https://api.clay.com/v3/mcp. FullEnrich: https://mcp.fullenrich.com/mcp. **Which is better, Clay or FullEnrich?** Same idea, opposite packaging. Clay gives you the waterfall plus a table, branching logic and research steps that non-engineers can change. FullEnrich gives you the waterfall as a single API call with a single bill and nothing else. **What are the downsides of Clay and FullEnrich?** Measured against each other rather than in general. Clay: none of the structural gaps in this answer; the limits section carries its operational ones. FullEnrich: there is no free tier, only a trial, so test your own list inside its limits before paying. **Can you use Clay and FullEnrich together?** These are the same idea sold to two different buyers, so running both usually means one of them is doing a job the other already does. **Can I migrate from Clay to FullEnrich without losing data?** Not without losing a field. FullEnrich does not return firmographics, technographics, job postings, job changes and intent and news, which Clay does, so anything downstream that reads it has to change. Either way, measure your match rate on 500 rows before you switch, because that number is the one you cannot recover afterwards. Published by ## [Frontal](https://frontal.so/) Frontal is the go-to-market partner for B2B tech companies past product-market fit. It publishes this directory. Every price, tier requirement and rate limit on this page was read from the vendor's own pricing page, developer documentation or knowledge base on the date below. Nothing on it is restated from a press release or a third-party listing. Frontal is a Clay Elite Studio Partner. Where a vendor publishes no public figure, this page says so rather than estimating. [How we checked](https://frontal.so/gtm-apis#method). Reviewed by [Kenny Damian](https://www.linkedin.com/in/kenny-damian-90aba221a/) Co-founder & Head of GTM, Frontal **Verified** 8 to 19 Oct 2026 **Sources** 5 vendor documents Read from - [clay.com/pricing](https://www.clay.com/pricing) - [clay.com/university](https://www.clay.com/university) - [university.clay.com/docs](https://university.clay.com/docs) - [fullenrich.com/pricing](https://www.fullenrich.com/pricing) - [docs.fullenrich.com](https://docs.fullenrich.com/)