Benchmarks · GTM data providers
Do two GTM data vendors return the same people, and do they agree on the fields?
Coverage, filter compliance and field agreement for go-to-market data vendors, measured against reference profiles across several ICP definitions.
Current edition
September 2026
- Vendors measured
- 2
- ICP definitions
- 5
- People in the union
- 2,406
- Comparisons judged
- 17,610
Headline findings
What the September 2026 edition found.
Measured 2026-09-12 · re-verification due 2026-12-12
Apollo and Clay disagree by segment, not overall. Across all 5 ICP definitions, 853 of Apollo's 1,047 returned rows were valid (81.5%) against 1,574 of Clay's 1,888 (83.4%). By set, Clay had the higher valid-row rate on RevOps · San Francisco, Sales · Munich and Ops · Ohio; Apollo had the higher rate on Marketing · Singapore and Founders · Austin (approximately harmonised).
Neither vendor is a superset of the other. Of 2,406 distinct people found by either vendor, 520 were found by both, 527 by Apollo only and 1,359 by Clay only. Overlap figures are floors and unique-contribution figures are ceilings.
Both vendors are accurate on identity and drift on employment. Name and location agree with the reference profile more often than title and company, for both vendors:
| Vendor | Name | Location | Title | Company |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apollo | 98.8% n=1,016 n/c 31 | 97.5% n=1,007 n/c 40 | 92.6% n=1,014 n/c 33 | 92.3% n=1,014 n/c 33 |
| Clay | 100.0% n=1,814 n/c 74 | 98.6% n=1,725 n/c 163 | 91.8% n=1,813 n/c 75 | 91.5% n=1,809 n/c 79 |
This measures agreement with LinkedIn, not correctness. A reference profile was retrieved for 1,016 of Apollo's 1,047 returned rows (97.0%) and 1,816 of Clay's 1,888 (96.2%). Reference-profile retrieval conditions every agreement rate above, so it is published beside them.
Editions
Every run of this benchmark.
| Edition | Measured | Re-verification due | Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| September 2026 | 2026-09-12 | 2026-12-12 | Data |
Custom benchmarks
Run the same test on your own ICP.
Bring your ICP and the data providers you use or are considering. We scope a custom evaluation around your decision and show you the evidence: who each provider finds, who your current source misses, and how accurate the records are.