GTM AI Index
Index GTM data and infrastructure Enrichment › Apollo.io vs Cleanlist
Data enrichment · September 2026 Edition

Apollo.io vs Cleanlist

Ten of twelve models named Apollo.io first on the direct prompt; two named Cleanlist. Apollo.io was named by twelve of the twelve models and Cleanlist by eight and Apollo.io carries 64 labels and Cleanlist 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Apollo.io

endorsed leader

San Francisco, United States, founded 2015. Named in twenty categories this edition.

Cleanlist

accepted challenger

Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share70%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate19%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#5A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels6420A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Apollo.io reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Cognism was named alongside these two in eight of the twelve direct answers. Apollo.io vs Clay · Apollo.io vs Amplemarket · Apollo.io vs Cognism

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the data enrichment page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Apollo.ioFirst choices, of twelve modelsCleanlist
Direct102
Paraphrase100
Comparative31
Budget-constrained110
Scale-constrained101 against Apollo.io
Negative0011 against Apollo.io
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Apollo.io and Cleanlist stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
Apollo.io Cleanlist first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Apollo.io on the left and Cleanlist on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Apollo.io and Cleanlist stood in it.

Both were the first choice

1 of 12 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.
MiniMax M2.5Apollo.io, Cleanlist alternatives: Amplemarket, Cognism, ZoomInfo

Apollo.io first, Cleanlist an alternative

9 of 12 modelsCleanlist was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Claude Haiku 4.5Amplemarket, Apollo.io, Cognism
GPT-5.4 miniApollo.io alternatives: Clearbit/HubSpot-native enrichment, Cognism
Gemini 3.5 FlashApollo.io, Clay alternatives: Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence
Perplexity SonarApollo.io alternatives: Clay, Cognism, UpLead, ZoomInfo
Grok 4.1 FastApollo.io alternatives: Clay, Cleanlist, UpLead
Mistral SmallApollo.io alternatives: Cleanlist, UpLead
Qwen 3.7 FlashApollo.io alternatives: Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence, UpLead
Kimi K2Apollo.io alternatives: Cleanlist, Cognism, UpLead
GLM 4.7 FlashXApollo.io alternatives: Clay, Cognism, Lusha, UpLead

Cleanlist first, Apollo.io an alternative

1 of 12 modelsApollo.io was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
DeepSeek V4 FlashCleanlist alternatives: Apollo.io, Clay, Snov.io, UpLead

Neither was named

1 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Apollo.io leads by seventy-six points.
Apollo.io76%#1 of 10
Cleanlist0%#7 of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Apollo.io leads by sixty-five points.
Apollo.io70%#1 of 10
Cleanlist4%#5 of 10
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Apollo.io leads by five points.
Apollo.io7%#5 of 9
Cleanlist2%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Apollo.io

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.

“Tools with Significant Data Quality Issues ... Bounce rates of 20-35% reported by multiple users, even for emails labeled "verified"” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Be cautious with these B2B data enrichment tools... Apollo.io: Frequently criticized for 15-30% email bounce rates” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · hard negative
“Apollo.io is widely recommended for budget-conscious teams.... Apollo provides more functionality at a lower price point than almost any competitor” Claude Haiku 4.5 · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Cleanlist

No label in this category carried a quote.

Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.