Clearbit API Alternatives: 6 Options Compared for 2026

August 3, 2026 32 min read 0 Views

I’m going to be honest with you. Most Clearbit alternatives articles are written by whoever ranks first in their own list.

This one has a CUFinder entry too; it’s our site. So I’ll do the only honest thing available: tell you exactly how each option was judged, show you every documented price with a link, and give our own entry a real downside. Because you deserve a comparison you can check, not a coronation.

Here’s the situation. Clearbit got acquired by HubSpot, and a lot of teams started looking around. Some because pricing changed, some because the roadmap tilted toward HubSpot customers, and some because they were never on HubSpot to begin with.

So let’s sort out who actually needs to switch, and to what. By what you were USING Clearbit for, because that detail changes the right answer completely.

TL;DR: the short answer by use case

No single winner exists here. The right Clearbit alternative depends on what you’re enriching and where:

Self-serve API testing today → CUFinder or People Data Labs. Both hand you a key without a sales call.
Enrichment plus outreach in one tool → Apollo.io. The consolidation is the point.
North American enterprise scale → ZoomInfo. Deepest US data, slowest front door.
Bulk data into a warehouse → Coresignal. Datasets, not record-by-record calls.
European lists and strict GDPR posture → Dropcontact. Built for exactly that.

Disclosure, right at the top: CUFinder is our product. The one first-party fact I’ll offer is checkable: our database covers 260M+ companies, and you can get a key and run your first calls against it on free credits to verify the match rate yourself. That test beats anything I could claim.

That’s the destination. Now the context, because the context is why you’re here.

What actually changed at Clearbit

Clearbit became HubSpot’s data layer; that’s the change in one sentence. After the acquisition, its enrichment capabilities were folded into what HubSpot now sells as Breeze Intelligence, positioned first and foremost for HubSpot customers.

The short timeline: HubSpot completed the acquisition in December 2023, and through 2024 Clearbit’s enrichment was rebuilt into Breeze Intelligence inside HubSpot’s platform. The standalone product developers signed up for stopped being the thing on sale.

Three concrete shifts matter for anyone who used the old standalone Clearbit:

The ecosystem tilt. The product’s center of gravity is inside HubSpot now. If your stack lives elsewhere, you’re integrating against a platform rather than calling a neutral API vendor.
The pricing shape. Breeze Intelligence enrichment runs on a credit basis through HubSpot, and there’s no simple standalone public API price list of the kind old Clearbit developers were used to. Structure, not numbers, because numbers aren’t published that way.
The free logo API sunset. The beloved free logo endpoint (the one half the internet quietly embedded) was formally scheduled for shutdown, announced in HubSpot’s developer changelog. If your product displays company logos through it, you have a migration task whether you feel like one or not.

And the reaction was loud. Threads like this r/SaaS discussion hunting for Clearbit and ZoomInfo alternatives capture the mood: teams that built on a developer-friendly standalone API found themselves evaluating a platform decision instead.

If you’re mid-contract, one practical note before any migration planning: reread your current terms. Renewal dates, notice windows, and what happens to enriched data at exit all shape your timeline more than any feature comparison does. Teams that check the notice window FIRST get to run a calm parallel evaluation. Teams that check it last get to run a panicked one.

That’s what changed. Here’s who actually needs to care.

Do you actually need to switch?

If you’re a HubSpot customer, probably not. Clearbit’s data now flows natively into HubSpot as Breeze Intelligence, and that integration is genuinely smoother than bolting a third-party API onto the same workflow.

Switch if one of these is true:

You’re not on HubSpot and don’t plan to be
You need API access without a platform commitment
Your coverage gaps are outside North America
You need data types Clearbit didn’t go deep on, like funding history or tech stack detail

Otherwise you might be solving a problem you don’t have. Seriously: staying put is sometimes the right call, and no alternatives listicle will tell you that.

The signals you should probably stay:

Your CRM is HubSpot and your Clearbit usage was forms, scoring, and record enrichment inside it
Your match rates are still fine on the segments you actually work
Nobody on the team calls the API directly; the integration IS the product for you
The switching cost in engineering time exceeds a year of any price difference

If three of those four are true, bookmark this page for later and go do something with higher pipeline impact. I mean that. The rest of you, keep reading.

Match your migration to the Clearbit product you used

Here’s the step nearly everyone skips. “Clearbit” was four products wearing one name, and each one migrates differently:

The Enrichment API (domain or email in, firmographics and person data out) → replaceable by everything on this list. This is the easy case.
Reveal / visitor identification (IP in, company out) → a different product category. Most enrichment vendors don’t do it; you’re shopping for website visitor identification tools, not this list.
The logo API → a tiny, specific need. Dedicated logo and favicon services replace it in an afternoon. Migrating your data vendor because of logos would be overkill.
Forms and lead scoring inside your CRM → if that CRM is HubSpot, Breeze is the path of least resistance. If it isn’t, pick an enrichment API and rebuild the scoring where your CRM lives.

Audit which of the four you actually call before reading another word. It shrinks the decision beautifully.

What to look for in any Clearbit alternative

Before the list, the yardstick. A good Clearbit alternative, for the enrichment job specifically, has to clear five bars:

Self-serve access. The old Clearbit’s superpower was that a developer could start in an afternoon. Any replacement that begins with a demo call has already lost part of what you’re replacing.
Match rate on YOUR identifiers. Vendors match domains, emails, names, and LinkedIn URLs with very different success. Check the identifier you actually hold, on the geography you actually sell into.
Field depth where you need it. Headcount and industry are table stakes. Funding, tech stack, contact-level detail, and freshness timestamps separate the field.
A pricing document you can read. Not because published pricing is always cheaper (it isn’t) but because you can’t model cost per usable record from “talk to sales.”
A compliance story your lawyers accept. Sourcing, lawful basis, deletion handling. Ask now; the question arrives eventually either way.

Notice what’s NOT on the list: feature count. Post-acquisition shoppers get shown a lot of platforms. If what you lost was an enrichment API, judge candidates as enrichment APIs and let the rest be a bonus, not the decision.

Those five bars became the weighted criteria below. Here’s exactly how.

How we compared these 6

Six criteria, weighted by how much pain each one causes when it goes wrong:

API access and free tier (25%): can a developer get a key and test today?
Data coverage and depth (25%): company and person data, field richness, geography
Pricing transparency (15%): does the vendor publish real numbers in public documents?
Compliance posture (15%): documented GDPR handling; see gdpr.eu if the regulation is new to you
Integration fit (10%): SDKs, docs quality, CRM connectors
Procurement friction (10%): contracts, brand recognition, security review pain

Method: public documentation only. Every price you’ll read is linked to the vendor’s own document in the same sentence; anything not documented gets described as a shape, without numbers. Checked August 2026. And CUFinder gets scored with the same knife: you’ll notice we do NOT top the scorecard.

Limitations, stated plainly: pricing and packaging change, so verify the linked documents before budgeting; scores reflect documented capabilities plus our judgment, not a lab benchmark of match rates (that benchmark is the 200-record test only YOU can run); and no vendor paid for placement here, but one of the six pays my salary, which is why the disclosure appears every time it’s relevant.

🔍 Documented pricing only: if a number on this page isn't linked to the vendor's own pricing document, it doesn't appear. Third-party "starting at" figures are one buyer's anecdote; treat them accordingly wherever you read them.

Quick comparison

Alternative	Best for	Self-serve API?	Free tier?	Documented pricing?
CUFinder	Self-serve company + contact enrichment	Yes	Yes, free credits	Public plans
People Data Labs	Raw person data at developer scale	Yes	Yes, 100 records/mo	Yes, full credit tables
Apollo.io	Enrichment + built-in outreach	Yes	Yes	Public plans, seat-based
ZoomInfo	North American enterprise coverage	No, sales-led	No	No, quote only
Coresignal	Bulk datasets and firmographics	Yes	Free plan	Partial, from $49/mo
Dropcontact	European data and GDPR posture	Yes	Trial	Public plans

So which of the six fits YOUR stack? Let’s go one by one.

Each card below follows the same shape on purpose: what the tool is best for, what you actually get, where it maps to the Clearbit you’re leaving, the pricing situation with documented numbers only, an honest downside, and a “skip it if” line. Consistent structure makes the comparison fair, and makes it obvious when a vendor, ours included, doesn’t fit your case.

The alternatives, one by one

1. CUFinder

The self-serve replacement for old-school Clearbit enrichment, and our own product, so read this entry with that in mind.

Best for: teams that want Clearbit’s core job (identifier in, enriched record out) through an API key they can get today, with a free tier to prove match rates first.

What you get: the practical difference against Breeze-era Clearbit is access. You get a key without a sales call and run your own list through company enrichment or person enrichment before committing to anything. Coverage spans company and contact data across 260M+ companies, plus narrower endpoints Clearbit didn’t go deep on: tech stack detection and funding history among them.

Where it maps to Clearbit: the identifier-in, record-out enrichment job, the thing most Clearbit API users actually called. Domain to firmographics, email to person, name to contact details. If your integration was a handful of enrichment calls in a signup flow or a CRM sync, the migration is an endpoint swap plus a field-mapping afternoon.

Pricing shape: published credit plans, a free allocation of starter credits to test with, and two terms worth knowing before you compare: unmatched lookups don’t burn credits, and repeated lookups of the same record aren’t charged twice. I’m deliberately not quoting our own numbers here as if this were neutral coverage; they’re on our pricing page, and the free credits let you check value before price.

The honest downside: brand footprint. CUFinder is a smaller name than ZoomInfo or HubSpot, with a thinner third-party review base. If your procurement team wants a logo they recognize and a stack of analyst reports, that’s a real obstacle and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. The counterweight is testability: you can verify our data on YOUR records before anyone signs anything.

Skip it if: you need a household name to clear a conservative procurement process, or your use case is visitor identification rather than enrichment.

2. People Data Labs

The most developer-shaped option on this list, and the transparency benchmark the rest of the market should be judged against.

Best for: engineering teams building a product on top of person data, rather than filling a CRM.

What you get: clean documentation, predictable endpoints, and a genuinely large person dataset. And real published numbers: their pricing page documents a free plan of up to 100 records per month and Pro plans from $98 per month, while the pricing and credits documentation goes further and publishes the full credit tables: person enrichment from $0.28 per credit on monthly Tier 1, company enrichment from $0.10. Credits are consumed per successful match, so misses don’t cost you.

Where it maps to Clearbit: the developer use cases: products built on enrichment, data pipelines, anything where Clearbit was infrastructure rather than a CRM feature. PDL’s whole design assumes an engineer is on the other end, which is exactly the audience the acquisition left homeless.

The honest downside: less turnkey. You get raw records and do more of the assembly yourself: a feature if you have engineers, a burden if you don’t. There’s no dashboard your sales team will enjoy, and contact-level fields sit behind the paid tiers. And if your lists skew heavily European, test that geography specifically before committing; person-data depth varies by region for every vendor in this market, PDL included.

Skip it if: nobody on your team writes code. This is a developer product, proudly so.

3. Apollo.io

The consolidation play: data and outreach in one product.

Best for: sales teams that want enrichment, sequencing, and dialing in one place, and would rather manage one tool than three.

What you get: a large contact database bundled with the engagement layer. There’s a free plan to start, and public per-seat plans with credit allowances; the shape is seats plus credits rather than a pure metered API. For teams replacing Clearbit as part of a broader outbound stack rebuild, that bundle can genuinely simplify life.

Where it maps to Clearbit: loosely. Clearbit was a data layer you wired into your own tools; Apollo is a workspace your reps live in. Teams replacing “Clearbit + an outreach tool” with one product land well here. Teams replacing “Clearbit as API infrastructure” usually don’t; the bundle solves a different problem than the one they lost.

The honest downside: the enrichment is a component of a bigger product rather than the point of it. Teams that only want clean data through an API sometimes find Apollo deeper than they need in outreach and shallower than they’d like in data. If your evaluation is API-first, compare its data quality on your own list rather than assuming the bundle carries it.

Skip it if: you already like your outreach stack. Buying a bundle to use a third of it is how tool sprawl starts.

4. ZoomInfo

The strongest North American dataset here, and the slowest to get into.

Best for: enterprise teams selling into the US mid-market and up, with predictable volume and procurement support.

What you get: two decades of B2B contact and company data with US depth nobody on this list fully matches, plus intent and signal layers, sold through annual contracts. Pricing isn’t published: access runs through a sales process, and API credentials arrive after provisioning, not after a signup form.

Where it maps to Clearbit: as an upgrade path rather than a swap. Teams that outgrew Clearbit’s depth (bigger TAM projects, intent data, direct-dial coverage) evaluate ZoomInfo because it’s the next weight class. Just know you’re changing procurement models at the same time as changing vendors, and budget the timeline for both.

The honest downside: everything about the front door. No free tier, no self-serve key, no published prices, and an annual commitment you size before you’ve tested on your own records. Worth it at enterprise scale. Frustrating for a developer who wanted to ship something this week, which, post-Clearbit, describes a lot of the people reading this page.

Skip it if: your volume is uncertain, your market is outside North America, or your timeline is measured in days.

5. Coresignal

Built for bulk: datasets and firmographic breadth rather than one-record-at-a-time calls.

Best for: data teams loading large firmographic and workforce datasets into a warehouse, or products built on aggregate company data.

What you get: multiple data products (datasets and database APIs) with a documented entry point. Their pricing page states it plainly:

“A free plan, monthly plans starting at $49/month, and annual plans.”
Coresignal, pricing page, on their database APIs

Dataset pricing is set by contract length, locations, and source tier: negotiated, but the structure is at least described publicly.

Where it maps to Clearbit: mostly, it doesn’t, and that’s the value of naming it. If your post-Clearbit plan is “stop enriching record-by-record and build a proper company-data foundation in the warehouse,” Coresignal is that different road. It’s an alternative to the strategy, not just to the vendor.

The honest downside: shape mismatch for CRM work. If your Clearbit use case was “enrich this signup right now,” a bulk-dataset vendor is the wrong tool, and the commitments are sized for bigger data operations than a few thousand monthly lookups.

Skip it if: you don’t have a data team. Datasets without an owner become expensive files nobody queries.

6. Dropcontact

The European specialist, with a deliberately GDPR-forward posture.

Best for: teams enriching European lists whose legal departments ask hard questions about data sourcing, and expect good answers.

What you get: B2B email enrichment on a pay-on-success model (you pay for verified results, not attempts) with company data enrichment, duplicate detection, and job-change tracking around it. The GDPR positioning isn’t a sticker; being audited against Europe’s strictest data-protection standards is central to how they sell.

Where it maps to Clearbit: the contact-enrichment slice, for European lists specifically. If GDPR posture was the itch Clearbit never quite scratched for your legal team, this is the entry to test first; the compliance column on our scorecard is theirs by a distance.

The honest downside: narrower than the others outside Europe, and thinner on deep firmographic attributes. It replaces Clearbit’s email-and-contact enrichment for a European book of business. It doesn’t replace the whole platform.

Skip it if: your pipeline is mostly US-based, or you need deep firmographics more than verified contact channels.

Scorecard: all six, same knife

Scores are 1-5 per criterion, weighted as described in the method section. Weighted totals rounded to one decimal:

Provider	API + free tier (25%)	Coverage (25%)	Pricing transparency (15%)	Compliance (15%)	Integration (10%)	Procurement (10%)	Weighted
People Data Labs	5	4	5	4	3	3	4.2
CUFinder	5	4	4	4	3	2	4.0
Coresignal	4	4	4	4	2	3	3.7
Apollo.io	4	3	4	3	4	4	3.6
Dropcontact	4	2	3	5	3	3	3.3
ZoomInfo	1	5	1	4	5	5	3.3

Read that honestly. People Data Labs tops OUR OWN scorecard, because the weights favor self-serve access and published pricing, the two things Clearbit refugees miss most. CUFinder sits second, dragged down by the procurement column, exactly as disclosed. And ZoomInfo scores low here while still being the right answer for the enterprise buyer its model serves. Weights are choices. If coverage matters more to you than access, re-weight and the order changes; that’s why the raw scores are shown.

Choosing by scenario

Scores summarize; scenarios decide. Find yours:

You’re on HubSpot and mostly used Clearbit for forms and CRM records → evaluate Breeze Intelligence first. Switching vendors to avoid an integration you already have is solving the wrong problem.
You’re a developer whose product called the Clearbit API → CUFinder and People Data Labs are the two to parallel-run. Both give you a key today; your own match-rate numbers settle the argument.
You’re an outbound team that used Clearbit alongside a sequencer → test Apollo’s bundle against a data-only alternative plus your current sequencer. Price the consolidation honestly, including migration effort.
You’re enterprise, with procurement and a security review → shortlist ZoomInfo plus one self-serve benchmark. The benchmark’s published pricing keeps the negotiation grounded in documented numbers.
Your book of business is European → Dropcontact for contacts, and interrogate every other vendor’s GDPR story before signing anything.
You’re building a data foundation, not patching a workflow → Coresignal’s dataset shape beats record-by-record enrichment economics at warehouse scale.

Two scenarios can be true at once; the Hamburg story below is exactly that. Split the decision by use case and let each half have its own winner.

And what about the names not on this list? Cognism gets recommended constantly for European contact data and verified mobiles, Lusha and UpLead for lighter-weight lookups, Hunter for email-first workflows, 6sense and Demandbase where the real question is account-based orchestration rather than enrichment. They’re legitimate options; this page went deep on six shapes instead of shallow on sixteen, but if one of those names matches your scenario, add it to the same 200-record test. The protocol doesn’t care how many candidates you run through it.

Comparing the pricing shapes honestly

You can’t compare these six on price alone, because they don’t sell the same unit. Four different shapes are in play:

Credit plans (CUFinder, People Data Labs): you buy lookups; the fine print that matters is whether misses and duplicates burn credits.
Seats plus credits (Apollo): cost scales with team size as much as with data volume.
Pay-on-success (Dropcontact): you pay for verified results, which makes messy lists cheaper and clean lists pricier per attempt.
Negotiated contracts (ZoomInfo, dataset-side Coresignal): annual commitments where the terms, not the list price, decide your real cost.

The equalizer across all four shapes is one metric:

cost per usable record = total spend ÷ records you can actually act on

Work a quick example with documented anchors. Say you enrich 1,000 person records a month. On People Data Labs’ documented monthly Tier 1 rate of $0.28 per credit (from their pricing documentation), 1,000 successful matches cost $280. But if only 700 of your 1,000 rows match, you spend $196 for 700 usable records: $0.28 per usable record, because misses aren’t charged. Now imagine a vendor at half the sticker price that DOES charge misses and matches 50%: you’d pay $140 for 500 usable records, which is… exactly the same $0.28. Sticker price halved, real cost identical.

→ sticker price → adjust for match rate → adjust for miss/duplicate charges → cost per usable record. Run that chain on every candidate, with your own list’s match rates, and the comparison becomes arithmetic instead of vibes.

And one warning from the community threads: “cheapest” is a trap query. The teams unhappiest with their post-Clearbit choice are consistently the ones that optimized sticker price and discovered match-rate math afterward.

One last shape question: monthly or annual? Annual terms usually discount: People Data Labs’ documented annual tiers price below their monthly ones, and most vendors follow the pattern. But an annual commitment on a vendor you haven’t parallel-run is a discount on a guess. Buy monthly until your own data says commit. Then commit and take the discount with a clear conscience.

How to migrate off Clearbit without breaking things

Lists don’t decide this. Your own records do, and a migration you can roll back. Here’s the sequence that works:

Audit your actual Clearbit calls. Grep your codebase and your automation platform for every Clearbit request. Note the endpoint, the input field, the output fields you consume, and the monthly volume. Most teams find they use far fewer fields than they pay for.
Map each call to a replacement endpoint. Enrichment calls map to this list. Reveal calls map to visitor-identification tools. Logo calls map to a logo service. One vendor rarely replaces all three, and that’s fine.
Parallel-run on the same records. Send the same real traffic to Clearbit and the candidate for two to four weeks. Log both results. The overlap report tells you what you’d gain or lose BEFORE anything depends on it.
Compare on cost per usable record. Total spend divided by records you’d actually act on. A cheaper API with a weaker match rate on your geography can be the expensive option.
Cut over one workflow at a time. Forms first or CRM sync first, never everything at once. Keep the old integration dormant but intact for a month after each cutover.

💡 Parallel-run tip: keep the comparison log even after you switch. It becomes your baseline for the NEXT vendor review, and the evidence file when procurement asks why you chose what you chose.

And the logo API special case: don’t let a logo dependency drive a data-vendor decision. Swap in a dedicated logo or favicon service, ship it, and evaluate enrichment on its own merits.

The migration mistakes I keep seeing

Five failure patterns account for most painful Clearbit migrations. All five are avoidable:

Testing on clean data. Your demo list of Fortune 500 domains matches everywhere. Your real CRM (small companies, typos, international rows) is where vendors separate. Test the messy rows.
Ignoring field mapping. “Industry” doesn’t mean the same taxonomy at two vendors, and headcount bands rarely line up. Map fields explicitly or your downstream segments silently shift meaning.
Forgetting latency profiles. A form-enrichment call that took 300ms at one vendor and takes 2 seconds at another changes your user experience. Benchmark response times under your real traffic, not in a single test call.
Cutting over everything at once. One workflow at a time, with the old integration dormant but intact. Rollback you never need is cheap; rollback you can’t do is not.
Skipping the freshness check. Hand-verify ten people from the test results against their public profiles. Job changes are the fastest-decaying field in B2B data; if several of your ten moved on and the API didn’t know, you’ve learned more than any accuracy claim would tell you.

None of these are exotic. That’s the point: migrations fail on boring things, so the checklist gets to be boring too.

Budget-wise, plan the transition as a brief double-spend. During the parallel-run weeks you’re paying two vendors for the same records: a few hundred dollars for most teams, and easily the highest-information spend in the whole project. Teams that refuse the overlap to save a month of fees end up buying their information the expensive way: in production, from angry sales reps whose leads stopped routing. Pay for the boring overlap. It’s cheaper than the exciting alternative.

How to pick without wasting a month

Don’t read six more comparison pages. Take 200 of your own records and run them through every provider offering a trial, and I’ve written up how the wider field compares in our guide to data enrichment APIs compared if your shortlist goes beyond these six.

Then measure four things:

Match rate on YOUR list, not the number in their marketing
Accuracy of a hand-checked sample: pull twenty records and verify them yourself
Freshness: ask when each field was last verified, and watch whether they can answer
Cost per usable record: the only figure that actually matters

That last one reorders shortlists more often than you’d expect. A provider at half the price with a 40% match rate is more expensive than a pricier one at 80%, per record you can actually use.

The test protocol, step by step

Here’s the exact protocol, so nobody has to improvise:

Build a stratified 200-record sample. Roughly 50 clean enterprise rows, 50 small companies, 50 international rows, 50 of your genuinely messy ones: old records, odd names, missing fields. The strata matter; an all-clean sample tells you nothing.
Run the identical file through each candidate. Same rows, same day. Log per provider: matched yes/no, fields returned, response time.
Hand-check twenty matches per provider. Verify the person still works there, the title is current, the company facts hold. Twenty is enough to see the pattern without eating your week.
Compute three numbers per provider. Match rate overall, match rate on the international stratum, and cost per usable record from the pricing you’d actually pay.
Decide with the numbers in front of you. If two providers land close, the tiebreakers are compliance posture and how their pricing behaves as you scale, not the demo experience.

Total effort: about an afternoon of setup and an hour of checking per provider. Against a year of enrichment spend, that’s the best-paid afternoon in marketing ops.

📌 Test on your worst data, not your best. Everyone matches clean enterprise records. The difference shows up on small companies, international ones, and the messy rows you'd rather ignore.

The evaluation that taught me this

Let me tell you why I keep repeating the parallel-run advice. In 2023, the week the acquisition news landed, I was working with a SaaS team in Hamburg whose HubSpot forms leaned on Clearbit enrichment for routing and scoring. Panic meeting, naturally. Do we rip it out?

We didn’t. We ran roughly 500 of their recent form fills through two replacement APIs in parallel while leaving the HubSpot integration untouched. And the result surprised the room: for FORMS, staying HubSpot-native was clearly right: the integration advantage was real. But the API enrichment feeding their product? That moved out, because the parallel run showed comparable match rates at self-serve prices with no platform dependency.

One evaluation, two different answers. That’s not indecision. That’s what happens when you judge by use case instead of by headline, and it’s exactly why this article refuses to crown one winner.

The postscript makes the point sharper. Six months later the same team reviewed the decision with real usage data. The forms verdict held: the native integration kept earning its place. The API verdict held too, for the opposite reason: the product enrichment had scaled to volumes where platform credits would have been the wrong economics entirely. Two decisions, both still right, because each was matched to its use case instead of to a brand.

The compliance questions to ask every vendor

Whichever alternative you shortlist, your legal team will eventually ask where the data comes from. Get ahead of them; it’s a fifteen-minute conversation per vendor, and the answers separate mature providers from optimistic ones:

What’s your lawful basis for processing contact data? Under GDPR, “we scraped it” is not a lawful basis. Listen for a real answer about legitimate interest assessments and notice practices.
How do you handle deletion and objection requests? A vendor that propagates deletions to customers is doing the work. A vendor that shrugs is transferring the risk to you.
Where is the data processed and stored? Data residency matters for European controllers, and the answer should come quickly.
Do you distinguish business contact data from consumer data? The regulatory treatment differs, and a vendor should know exactly which side they sell.
Can you support our records-of-processing documentation? If you’re the controller, their processing details end up in YOUR paperwork.

Dropcontact leads this column in our scorecard because European audit posture is their whole positioning. But every vendor on the list gets asked the same five questions in a serious evaluation, and the speed of the answers tells you almost as much as their content.

What about the data Clearbit already enriched?

The records sitting in your CRM don’t vanish when you switch vendors, but three things are worth doing deliberately rather than by accident:

Check what you’re contractually allowed to keep. Data-use terms differ on whether enriched fields survive contract exit. Read yours before you plan around the answer.
Snapshot what you have. Export the enriched fields with a date stamp. Even where you keep the data, you’ll want to know which fields came from which vendor on which date once two sources start mixing.
Plan for decay, not preservation. Contact data ages fast (people change jobs constantly), so eighteen-month-old enrichment is a starting point, not an asset. The practical pattern going forward: enrich on write with the new vendor, and re-enrich the high-value segments on a schedule instead of trying to refresh everything at once.

Treat the old data as sunk value that bought you time. The migration decision should be about the NEXT million lookups, not the last ones.

Frequently asked questions

Is Clearbit still available after the HubSpot acquisition?

Yes, but as part of HubSpot’s ecosystem rather than a standalone vendor. Its enrichment lives on inside Breeze Intelligence, which is an advantage for HubSpot customers and the main reason everyone else starts looking elsewhere.

Is Clearbit shutting down?

No. The technology continues inside HubSpot’s Breeze Intelligence. What’s winding down are specific standalone pieces, most visibly the free logo API, whose sunset was announced in HubSpot’s developer changelog. “Shutting down” and “absorbed into a platform” feel similar from outside, but they call for different responses.

What is HubSpot Breeze Intelligence?

Breeze Intelligence is HubSpot’s data-enrichment layer, built on Clearbit’s technology after the acquisition. It enriches records and shortens forms natively inside HubSpot on a credit basis. If your CRM is HubSpot, it’s the default option to evaluate first; if not, it isn’t aimed at you.

How accurate is Clearbit?

Historically strong on domain-keyed company data in North America; that reputation was earned. But accuracy is a moving target for every vendor: contact data decays as people change jobs, and coverage varies by geography. Whatever number any vendor quotes, your own 200-record test on your own market is the accuracy figure that matters. And measure it fresh: accuracy claims you remember from Clearbit’s standalone era describe a product that has since changed hands, data pipeline and all.

How much does Clearbit cost now?

There’s no simple public standalone price list anymore. Enrichment through Breeze Intelligence is sold on a credit basis within HubSpot’s ecosystem, so your effective cost depends on your HubSpot plan and credit consumption. That structural change (from published API pricing to platform pricing) is itself one of the main reasons teams evaluate alternatives.

Is the Clearbit API free?

Not anymore in the way developers remember. The old free offerings (most famously the free logo API) have been sunset or folded into HubSpot’s credit model. If a free tier for testing matters to you, that’s now a reason to look at the self-serve providers on this list.

What is the free alternative to Clearbit?

Three real options: CUFinder starts you with free credits (our product; test it skeptically), People Data Labs documents a free plan of up to 100 records per month on its pricing page, and Apollo offers a free plan. Free tiers are sized for evaluation, not production, but evaluation is the step you’re on.

What replaces the Clearbit logo API?

A dedicated logo or favicon service; several exist precisely because of the sunset. It’s a small, contained migration: swap the endpoint, check your image sizes, ship. Don’t let it entangle your data-vendor decision; the two problems only share a brand name.

What’s the closest direct replacement for the Clearbit enrichment API?

For self-serve company enrichment via API, CUFinder and People Data Labs are the closest in shape: identifier in, record out, key without a sales call. Want enrichment bundled with outreach? Apollo. Enterprise scale with procurement involved? ZoomInfo. European contact lists? Dropcontact.

How long does migrating off Clearbit take?

For a simple enrichment integration: an afternoon to swap endpoints, two to four weeks of parallel-running to trust the results. For multi-product usage (enrichment plus Reveal plus forms), plan a quarter, because each product migrates to a different destination. The parallel-run window is the part teams try to skip, and it’s the part that prevents the expensive surprises.

What’s the difference between Clearbit and Leadfeeder?

Different jobs that overlap on one feature. Clearbit’s core was enrichment (completing records you already hold) with Reveal’s visitor identification as a sideline. Leadfeeder (now part of Dealfront) centers on identifying the companies visiting your website. If visitor identification is what you actually used, compare visitor-ID tools; this list solves the enrichment side.

Which Clearbit alternative is best for Salesforce users?

The honest answer: any API-first option on this list, because none of them locks you into a competing CRM. CUFinder, People Data Labs, and Coresignal all deliver via API into whatever your Salesforce pipeline consumes; Apollo and ZoomInfo ship native Salesforce integrations. The HubSpot-shaped option is the one that’s no longer aimed at you, which is likely why you’re asking.

Which Clearbit competitor is the best overall?

By our weighted scorecard, People Data Labs, and no, that isn’t us. But “best overall” is the wrong frame for this market: the weights encode priorities, and yours differ from ours. Best by use case is the honest question, and the TL;DR at the top answers it in five lines.

Do I need to migrate everything at once?

No, and you shouldn’t. Run the new provider alongside Clearbit on the same records for a few weeks, compare the overlap, then cut over one workflow at a time. The parallel run tells you exactly what you’d gain or lose before anything depends on the answer.

References

The documented sources behind this comparison, all publicly checkable:

Vendors without linked pricing (ZoomInfo, Apollo, Dropcontact, Breeze) publish structures rather than simple public API price lists, or sell through quotes, which is why their entries describe shapes, not numbers.

A dating note, because pricing pages are living documents: every source above was checked in August 2026. If you’re reading this later, click through before you budget; vendors restructure plans without ceremony, and a comparison article’s numbers age faster than its reasoning. The reasoning here (documented prices only, cost per usable record, parallel-run before cutover) should outlive any specific figure on the page.

Where I’d start

Pick the two whose shape matches your situation, grab free keys, and run the same 200 records through both this afternoon. That’s a faster way to choose a Clearbit alternative than reading another list, including this one.

If you want it as a week, here’s the calm version:

Monday: audit your Clearbit calls and check your contract’s notice window
Tuesday: build the stratified 200-record sample and pick two candidates by scenario
Wednesday: run the sample through both, log everything
Thursday: hand-check twenty records per provider, compute cost per usable record
Friday: decide, start the parallel run on one real workflow, and book the cutover review for a month out

And the rows that fail? They’ll tell you more about your own data than about the providers. Which is usually the more useful discovery.

You’ve got the criteria, the documented prices, and the migration sequence. What’s actually blocking the test? If the answer is “nothing,” you’ll know your replacement by Friday. And if the answer is “the contract notice window,” well, now you know what Monday is for. Either way, I’d honestly love to know which use case split YOUR decision in two.