COMPARE:
Clay or ZoomInfo for account and contact data
Clay against ZoomInfo for putting company and contact data in front of a sales team, with the same seven questions asked of each and neither one flattered. Mamba Labs builds the Apify actors here, Company Firmographics included, and the page says where it is the wrong answer.
The verdict
ZoomInfo is a contract, a seat count and the deepest United States data anyone sells. Clay is a table and a credit balance that reaches further and guarantees less. The buying process is most of the difference.
Dimension by dimension
| Clay | ZoomInfo | Company Firmographics | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What it actually does | Builds and enriches a list in a table, with each column calling a provider and falling through to the next. | Gives a sales team a searchable database of companies and people, with intent signals layered on top. | Takes a domain and returns the firmographic fields a scoring model or a CRM record needs. |
| Coverage and hit rate | The widest provider catalog anywhere, and a waterfall that tries them in the order you set. | The deepest United States coverage of any database here, including direct dials at scale. | Any company with a public web presence, including the small ones the big databases skip. |
| What it costs | Credits, spent per column run, and a run that returns nothing still costs on most providers. | An annual contract negotiated per seat, with export credits capped inside it. There is no self serve tier. | Cents per enriched domain, charged on a returned row. |
| How it fits a workflow | The table is the workflow. Exports and webhooks push the finished rows onward. | Native CRM sync, a browser extension, and a data share that writes into a warehouse. | An HTTP column in Clay, or one API call per domain from your own code. |
| Where the data comes from | Other people's data, resold through one interface, plus whatever you point its agent at. | A licensed and contributed database, refreshed by a research team and by user contribution. | The company's own site and public registers, with the origin named per field. |
| What it takes to set up | An afternoon to a first useful table, longer before the credit cost stops surprising you. | Weeks. There is a sales cycle, a contract and an onboarding before anyone searches anything. | Send a list of domains. Nothing to map and nothing to connect. |
| Where it stops | You cannot run your own code in it, so an unusual step is a step you cannot build. | You cannot try it, you cannot leave it mid term, and the seat count is what you are really buying. | Company level only. It does not hold people and does not pretend to. |
The same seven questions are asked on every compare page here, in this order, so two of these pages can be read against each other.
Where each one genuinely wins
- Clay wins on coverage and hit rate, how it fits a workflow. A spreadsheet that calls a hundred data providers, one column at a time.
- ZoomInfo wins on where the data comes from. The enterprise contact database, sold on an annual contract with a seat count.
- Company Firmographics wins on what it costs. Turns a domain into employee count, industry, headquarters and revenue band.
- Nobody wins on what it actually does, what it takes to set up, where it stops. Clay and ZoomInfo give the same answer on those, and we are not going to invent a difference.
Both products
What is best for you
If you need direct dials for enterprise accounts in the United States, ZoomInfo still has data nobody else does, and the contract is the price of it. If you need company level coverage across Europe, or any criterion narrower than an industry code, Clay reaches places ZoomInfo does not and you can start this afternoon. The mistake is buying ZoomInfo for firmographics alone. Employee count, industry and headquarters are cheap and public, and paying an annual contract for them funds the part of the product you are not using.
Some of the links on this page are affiliate links.