Table of contents
Clay’s advertised pricing starts at $149/month, but most teams spend $4,200-$9,600 annually once you factor in credit top-ups, failed lookup waste, and required tool dependencies like LinkedIn Sales Navigator. Here’s what Clay’s pricing actually costs in practice.
What is Clay?
Clay is a data enrichment and outreach automation platform that aggregates 75+ data providers into a spreadsheet-like interface. The platform targets revenue operations teams who need flexible data enrichment at scale. Clay’s core value proposition is consolidation: one interface, one credit pool, access to dozens of providers without managing multiple subscriptions.
Unlike all-in-one platforms that combine prospecting with email sequencing, Clay focuses exclusively on enrichment and workflow automation. You build data enrichment workflows using a visual builder, then export enriched leads to your email tool or CRM. This specialization creates dependencies on other tools for actual outreach.
Clay Pricing Plans Overview
Pricing Table Comparison
| Plan | Monthly | Annual | Credits/Month | Cost Per Credit | Key Limitations | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | $0 | $0 | 100 | $0 | No integrations, 100 rows | Testing only |
| Starter | $149 | $1,428 ($119/mo) | 2,000 | $0.075 | No CRM sync, basic features | Solo founders |
| Explorer | $349 | $3,348 ($279/mo) | 10,000 | $0.035 | 400 records/hour API throttle | Small teams 2-5 |
| Pro | $800 | $7,680 ($640/mo) | 50,000 | $0.016 | Limited to 5 team members | Mid-size teams |
| Enterprise | Custom | $30K-$154K+ | Custom | $0.008-$0.012 | Contract negotiations | Large orgs |
Annual savings: 20% discount when billed annually across all plans.
Key Plan Details
Free Plan: 100 credits monthly, sufficient for 10-20 basic enrichments. Maximum 100 table rows. No CRM integrations or API access. Best for testing only.
Starter Plan ($149/mo): 2,000 credits supporting 150-300 enriched contacts. Single user account. No CRM bidirectional sync. With 20-30% failed lookup rates, effective cost per contact is $0.71-$1.42.
Explorer Plan ($349/mo): 10,000 credits supporting 750-1,500 contacts. Critical limitation: 400 records per hour API throttle. This throttle makes the credit allocation misleading—you can only process 320 contacts per 8-hour workday. Effective cost increases from $0.035 to $0.054 per credit when accounting for throttle-induced waste.
Pro Plan ($800/mo): 50,000 credits supporting 3,750-7,500 contacts. Unlocks bidirectional CRM sync for automated enrichment workflows. Cost per credit drops to $0.016, making it cost-effective at 15,000+ credits monthly consumption. Additional user seats cost $50/month each beyond the included 5.
Enterprise Plan: Pricing ranges $30,000-$154,000 annually based on contract data. Typical packages include 200,000-500,000 credits monthly, unlimited team seats, and dedicated support. Cost per credit drops to $0.008-$0.012.
How Clay’s Credit System Works
Clay charges per action—every data enrichment, lookup, or API call consumes credits from your monthly allocation.
Credit Consumption Examples
Basic contact enrichment (name, email, title, company): 14 credits = $0.22-$1.05 depending on plan
Full contact enrichment (basic + phone + social profiles): 34 credits = $0.54-$2.55
Company enrichment (firmographics + technographics): 41 credits = $0.66-$3.08
Full contact + company enrichment: 75 credits = $1.20-$5.63 per fully enriched lead
Failed Lookups Still Cost Credits
Clay charges credits for every enrichment attempt, regardless of whether data is found. If you search for an email address and Clay queries three providers without finding a result, you pay for all three failed queries.
Typical waste percentage: Teams experience 20-30% failed lookup rates on average. Email finding has 25-35% failure rate, phone enrichment fails 30-40% of the time.
Budget impact example: Explorer plan allocates 10,000 credits ($349). With 25% failure rate, only 7,500 credits produce usable data. Effective cost per credit increases from $0.035 to $0.047—a 34% hidden markup.
Clay vs Alternatives: Cost Comparison
| Tool | Starting Price | Enrichment Model | Email + Phone | CRM Sync | Total Monthly Cost |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | $149/mo | Credit-based | Yes (via providers) | Pro+ only | $549+ (with stack) |
| Apollo | $49/mo | Unlimited contacts | Yes (native) | Yes (all plans) | $49-$99 |
| ZoomInfo | Custom (~$15K/year) | Seat-based | Yes (native) | Yes | $1,250/mo |
| Lusha | $39/mo | Credit-based | Yes (limited) | Yes | $39-$79 |
Cost per enriched contact (full profile):
- Clay Explorer: $0.66-$1.60
- Apollo Professional: $0.01-$0.03 (effectively unlimited)
- ZoomInfo: $1.50-$3.00
When Clay Makes Sense
Ideal use cases:
- Monthly enrichment volume exceeds 750 contacts with 8+ data points
- Data quality justifies 2-4 week learning curve
- Dedicated RevOps resources for workflow optimization
- Budget supports $800-$1,200 monthly total cost
When Alternatives Are Better
Budget constraints: If monthly GTM budget is under $500, Apollo ($49-$99/mo) provides 80% of value at 15-30% of Clay’s total cost.
Speed to value: Apollo or HubSpot allow same-day campaign launches versus Clay’s 2-4 week learning curve.
Multichannel outreach: For coordinated LinkedIn + email campaigns, integrated platforms like La Growth Machine combine prospecting, enrichment, and sequencing in one workflow, eliminating tool integration complexity and reducing total cost 30-40%.
Optimizing Clay Costs
Right-Sizing Your Plan
Usage estimation formula:
- Monthly enrichment volume: [X] contacts
- Average data points per contact: [Y]
- Base credits needed: X × Y × 6.5
- Add failure buffer (30%): Base × 1.3
Example: Enriching 500 contacts monthly with 8 data points:
- Base: 500 × 8 × 6.5 = 26,000 credits
- With buffer: 26,000 × 1.3 = 33,800 credits
- Recommended plan: Pro (50,000 credits)
FAQ
How much does Clay cost per year?
Clay’s annual cost ranges from $1,428 (Starter) to $7,680 (Pro) for subscription alone. Total cost including required tools typically runs $4,800-$13,200 annually once you add email sequencing tools ($400-$600/year), CRM ($168-$1,800/year), and LinkedIn Sales Navigator ($1,200/year per user).
Does Clay charge per user?
No, Clay charges per credit consumption, not per user seat. However, each user typically needs their own LinkedIn Sales Navigator license ($100/month) for LinkedIn enrichment workflows, creating per-user costs indirectly.
What happens when you run out of credits?
Clay offers top-up credit purchases at 47-60% markup over your plan’s base rate. Alternatively, workflows stop processing until next month’s credit refresh.
Is Clay worth it for small teams?
For solo founders or teams under 3 people enriching fewer than 500 contacts monthly, Apollo ($49-$99/mo) typically provides better value. Clay’s complexity requires 2-4 weeks learning curve that outweighs savings until enriching 750+ contacts monthly.
How do Clay credits compare to other tools?
Clay’s credit model is unique—most competitors use seat-based or contact-based pricing. Clay is cost-competitive with enterprise providers (ZoomInfo, Cognism) for teams enriching 1,500+ contacts monthly, but more expensive than Apollo or Lusha for smaller volumes.
Conclusion
Clay’s advertised pricing tells only 40-60% of the total cost story. The $149-$800 monthly subscription becomes $449-$1,200+ monthly once you factor in failed lookup waste (25-30% credit burn), required tool stack, top-up credit markups (50% premium), and operational overhead.
Decision framework:
Choose Clay if:
- Monthly enrichment volume exceeds 750 contacts with 8+ data points
- You have dedicated RevOps resources for workflow optimization
- Budget supports $800-$1,200 monthly total cost
Choose alternatives if:
- Monthly enrichment volume under 500 contacts
- Team lacks technical resources for workflow optimization
- Budget constraints under $500/month for entire GTM stack
For teams running multichannel outreach combining LinkedIn and email, integrated platforms eliminate the enrichment-to-outreach workflow gap, reducing total stack complexity and cost by 30-40% while maintaining data quality standards.
Comments