Is Clearbit the same as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence?

Functionally yes, going forward. HubSpot acquired Clearbit in 2023 and has productized the offering as Breeze Intelligence, bundled with HubSpot plans. Standalone Clearbit contracts are being transitioned; net-new product investment is flowing into Breeze.

Is Clay a direct Clearbit replacement?

For HubSpot-native enrichment workflows, Breeze is usually the simpler pick — it's already in your CRM. For programmable multi-provider enrichment outside HubSpot (or alongside HubSpot when you need more than firmographics), Clay is the right replacement. They are different tools; pick by where your CRM lives.

For HubSpot customers, bundled Breeze Intelligence is almost always cheaper than standalone Clearbit ever was. For non-HubSpot stacks, Clay's usage-based pricing typically wins on total landed cost at equivalent enrichment volume.

Only if you have clean scope separation — Clay for ops-led programmable workflows, Breeze for HubSpot-native rep-facing CRM enrichment. Running both without that split, especially alongside Apollo or ZoomInfo, is the single most common enrichment-layer waste pattern we see in 100k+ scans.

How does StackSwap help after I read this?

StackScan maps enrichment spend across Clay, Clearbit/Breeze, Apollo, ZoomInfo, and others, flags duplicates at the record level, and models the annual savings from consolidation specific to your stack.

Decision guide · 2026

Clay vs Clearbit: The Post-Acquisition Enrichment Decision

Clearbit isn't Clearbit anymore — it's HubSpot Breeze Intelligence. That changes the comparison entirely. Clay is independent orchestration across dozens of providers; Breeze is a HubSpot-native bundle. Picking wrong wastes meaningful spend.

Analyze your stack →

Benchmarked against 100k+ scans and 11+ weighted vendor datasets.

Quick verdict

Best for SMB: Clearbit/Breeze — if you are a HubSpot customer, the native bundle is hard to beat on total cost. Outside HubSpot, Clay is almost always the right pick.
Best for Enterprise: Clay — enterprise ops-led motions benefit from multi-provider orchestration. Breeze locks you to the HubSpot roadmap and data sources.
Best for Data: Clearbit/Breeze ships with a single curated firmographic dataset tuned for HubSpot workflows. Clay orchestrates best-of-breed sources per record via waterfall.
Best for Ease of Use: Clearbit/Breeze for HubSpot users who want zero-config CRM enrichment. Clay for RevOps operators who want composable enrichment they control.
Biggest Hidden Cost: Clearbit/Breeze: uncertain roadmap post-acquisition and lock-in to HubSpot pricing tiers. Clay: credit consumption spikes on unscoped workflows. Running both: paying for the same records twice — the single most common Clay + Clearbit waste pattern.

Side-by-side

	Clay	Clearbit
Ownership & roadmap	Independent platform. Product-led roadmap focused on orchestration + AI-native enrichment authoring.	Acquired by HubSpot (2023). Now productized as Breeze Intelligence — roadmap tied to HubSpot strategy, not standalone enrichment innovation.
Pricing model	Usage-based credit pool across aggregated providers; tiered by run volume. Low-four to mid-four figures monthly for active programs.	Historically per-record or tiered; now bundled into HubSpot Breeze pricing tiers. Standalone Clearbit contracts are being transitioned.
Core job	Enrichment orchestration: workflow-native, multi-provider waterfalls with AI-assisted authoring.	HubSpot-native firmographic/personographic enrichment + website visitor reveal, with form enrichment patterns.
Data coverage	Aggregator across dozens of providers — best-of-breed per field, flexible by use case.	Single curated dataset; strongest on US-centric B2B firmographics. International and SMB coverage thinner than aggregators.
Ideal customer	RevOps and ops-led teams on any CRM who want programmable enrichment across many sources.	HubSpot-centric orgs wanting zero-config CRM enrichment bundled with the platform they already run.
Hidden costs	Unscoped workflows burning credits; analyst time authoring waterfalls.	HubSpot tier lock-in; product roadmap uncertainty post-acquisition; easy to pay twice when Apollo or ZoomInfo cover the same records.
AI-readiness score (StackSwap lens)	79/100 — modeled from stack benchmarks, not a vendor score.	60/100 — same lens; use for relative posture, not absolutes.

Deep breakdown

Clay overview

What it does: Enrichment orchestration platform: programmable workflows pulling from dozens of data providers with a unified credit model and AI-assisted workflow authoring.
Where it shines: RevOps and ops-led teams on any CRM building custom enrichment waterfalls; motions where best-of-breed per-field sourcing beats single-vendor coverage.
Where it breaks: Credit consumption spikes on poorly-scoped workflows. Not a rep-facing CRM-native tool out of the box.
Typical stack usage: HubSpot/Salesforce + Clay + Apollo/Smartlead — a modern RevOps-led data + outbound loop. Clay sits between the CRM and the data providers as the control plane.

Clearbit (now HubSpot Breeze Intelligence) overview

What it does: Firmographic/personographic enrichment + website reveal, now productized as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence. Tight native integration with HubSpot records, forms, and workflows.
Where it shines: HubSpot customers wanting zero-config CRM enrichment bundled with their existing contract. Reveal for ABM visitor-ID plays is still a staple pattern.
Where it breaks: Outside HubSpot ecosystems — standalone Clearbit pricing is being transitioned and net-new investment has shifted into Breeze. International coverage and SMB firmographics are weaker than aggregators.
Typical stack usage: HubSpot + Breeze Intelligence + Marketing Hub — the HubSpot-native quartet. Risk: paying for Apollo or ZoomInfo alongside, where 70-90% of records overlap.

What most teams get wrong

Comparing Clay and Clearbit on "list price per record" — Clay is orchestration (usage-based), Clearbit/Breeze is a HubSpot-bundled service. Compare total landed cost on actual enrichment volume, not unit price.
Treating post-acquisition Clearbit as a standalone enrichment vendor. Net-new product investment is flowing into Breeze Intelligence inside HubSpot; standalone Clearbit roadmap is uncertain.
Running both Clay and Breeze Intelligence with no clear split of responsibility — Clay for ops-led programmable workflows, Breeze for HubSpot-native rep-facing enrichment. Without that split, 60-80% of records overlap.
Paying for Clearbit Reveal alongside a paid Apollo or ZoomInfo account — visitor-ID is real value, but the underlying firmographic enrichment is often duplicate spend.

Cost reality

Clay for a mid-market ops-led motion commonly lands low-four to mid-four figures monthly — usage-flexible and scales with actual enrichment volume. Priced from 11 weighted SaaS vendor datasets across the StackSwap modeling engine.

Clearbit standalone contracts historically ran low-four to low-five figures monthly at mid-market scale; post-acquisition, this is increasingly bundled into HubSpot Breeze Intelligence tiers. For HubSpot customers, Breeze enrichment often costs less incrementally than equivalent standalone Clearbit did.

The single biggest waste pattern: teams paying for Clearbit/Breeze AND Apollo AND ZoomInfo — three enrichment contracts covering 70-90% overlapping records. Modeled recovery from consolidation: $20K-$80K/yr at mid-market scale, higher at enterprise.

Before you choose — run your stack

Before you renew standalone Clearbit, model whether HubSpot Breeze Intelligence covers your workflow at lower total cost (if you're on HubSpot) or whether Clay-orchestrated waterfalls beat single-source enrichment (if you're not).

StackScan maps all enrichment spend across providers, flags where Clay, Clearbit, Apollo, and ZoomInfo cover the same records, and models the consolidation that recovers real dollars.

Use this comparison to frame the post-acquisition tradeoff; use StackScan to prove which approach earns the next enrichment contract in your specific stack.

Run your StackScan →

Final verdict

If you're a HubSpot customer, Breeze Intelligence is almost always the right default — it's native, bundled, and the pricing math usually wins. Audit for Apollo/ZoomInfo overlap; drop the one that doesn't match your motion.

If you're not on HubSpot, standalone Clearbit is a fading option — net-new investment has moved into Breeze. Clay's orchestration model typically wins on total cost and future-proofing.

The provocation: this is no longer a neutral enrichment vendor comparison. It is a "HubSpot bundle vs independent orchestration" decision — pick based on where your CRM lives, not on historical Clearbit brand strength.

Best alternatives & next reads

When both can make sense (rare)

Rare when clean — Clay for ops-led programmable workflows + Breeze for HubSpot-native rep-facing enrichment, with scope separation. Common when messy — paying for both while also running Apollo or ZoomInfo, where 70-90% of records duplicate.

AI-native pressure

Clay leans hard into AI-assisted workflow authoring and prompt-driven enrichment — the AI-native story is Clay's to lose. Breeze Intelligence inherits HubSpot's broader AI roadmap (Breeze Agents), which is more rep-facing than orchestration-native. Edge goes to Clay for ops-led AI enrichment, HubSpot Breeze for in-CRM AI workflows.

Related comparisons

FAQ

Is Clearbit the same as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence?: Functionally yes, going forward. HubSpot acquired Clearbit in 2023 and has productized the offering as Breeze Intelligence, bundled with HubSpot plans. Standalone Clearbit contracts are being transitioned; net-new product investment is flowing into Breeze.
Is Clay a direct Clearbit replacement?: For HubSpot-native enrichment workflows, Breeze is usually the simpler pick — it's already in your CRM. For programmable multi-provider enrichment outside HubSpot (or alongside HubSpot when you need more than firmographics), Clay is the right replacement. They are different tools; pick by where your CRM lives.
Which is cheaper?: For HubSpot customers, bundled Breeze Intelligence is almost always cheaper than standalone Clearbit ever was. For non-HubSpot stacks, Clay's usage-based pricing typically wins on total landed cost at equivalent enrichment volume.
Should I run both?: Only if you have clean scope separation — Clay for ops-led programmable workflows, Breeze for HubSpot-native rep-facing CRM enrichment. Running both without that split, especially alongside Apollo or ZoomInfo, is the single most common enrichment-layer waste pattern we see in 100k+ scans.
How does StackSwap help after I read this?: StackScan maps enrichment spend across Clay, Clearbit/Breeze, Apollo, ZoomInfo, and others, flags duplicates at the record level, and models the annual savings from consolidation specific to your stack.

Canonical URL: https://stackswap.ai/compare/clay-vs-clearbit