# Clay vs Lusha: which do AI models recommend for enrichment, October 2026

GTM AI Recommendation Index, October 2026 Edition, Data enrichment. One of fourteen models named Clay first on the direct prompt; zero named Lusha. Page: https://gtm-ai-index.com/gtm-data/data-enrichment/clay-vs-lusha/

| | First-choice share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Models naming it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clay | 6% | #2 of 12 | 11% | 37 | 14 of 14 |
| Lusha | 2% | #6 of 12 | 16% | 45 | 14 of 14 |

## The direct prompt, model by model

- Gemini 3.5 Flash: clay first (first choices: Clay) (alternatives: Apollo.io, Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence, ZoomInfo)
- GPT-5.4 mini: neither first, one named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Lusha, ZoomInfo)
- Mistral Small: neither first, one named (first choices: ZoomInfo) (alternatives: Clay, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence, UpLead)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: neither first, one named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Cleanlist, Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence, Lusha)
- Kimi K2: neither first, one named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Clay, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence)
- GLM 4.7 FlashX: neither first, one named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Clay, Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence)
- GPT-6 Luna: neither first, one named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Clay, Cognism, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence)
- Claude Haiku 4.5: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Cleanlist, Cognism, ZoomInfo)
- Perplexity Sonar: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Cognism, UpLead)
- Grok 4.1 Fast: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Cognism, UpLead)
- Llama 4 Maverick: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: HubSpot Breeze Intelligence, UpLead)
- Qwen 3.7 Flash: neither named (first choices: UpLead) (alternatives: Apollo.io, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence)
- MiniMax M2.5: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io, HubSpot Breeze Intelligence) (alternatives: ZoomInfo)
- Muse Glimmer 30B: neither named (first choices: Apollo.io) (alternatives: Cognism, HubSpot Sales Hub)

## What the models said about Clay

- "multi-provider setups built with tools such as Apollo’s waterfall feature or Clay... may make it harder to trace where a particular field came from" (GPT-6 Luna, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Don't adopt Clay unless you have technical staff to manage workflows." (DeepSeek V4 Flash, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "requires 3 to 4 additional tools and has unpredictable credit costs" (Claude Haiku 4.5, comparative prompt, soft negative)
- "Choose Clay if you have a modern, tech-savvy sales/marketing team ... wants the best possible email-finding coverage" (Gemini 3.5 Flash, paraphrase prompt, first choice)
- "Clay (Best for Workflow Orchestration & Waterfall Enrichment): Clay is a market leader for modern GTM teams." (Gemini 3.5 Flash, scale prompt, first choice)
- "If your strategy is personalized outbound and you want maximum data coverage: Go with Clay." (Gemini 3.5 Flash, comparative prompt, first choice)

## What the models said about Lusha

- "Low email accuracy: Independent checks suggest only about 68% email return at roughly 82% accuracy, which is below industry standards." (Mistral Small, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Tools that have faced regulatory actions (e.g., Lusha's Italy fine) should be avoided in sensitive jurisdictions." (GLM 4.7 FlashX, negative prompt, hard negative)
- "Some users report issues with outdated contact information and relatively high pricing for infrequent use." (Claude Haiku 4.5, negative prompt, soft negative)
- "Safer bets from reviews: Tools like Lusha (98% email accuracy, free tier)" (Grok 4.1 Fast, negative prompt, first choice)
- "Apollo.io or Lusha are the right entry points. Both offer free tiers" (Claude Haiku 4.5, budget prompt, first choice)

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category. Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category. Published under CC BY 4.0; the output is the models' output, and nothing here is a recommendation by the index.