Did HubSpot acquire Clearbit?

Yes — Clearbit was acquired by HubSpot and is now marketed as Breeze Intelligence, increasingly bundled into HubSpot plans. Standalone Clearbit is still available but the product center of gravity is HubSpot.

Can I use both Clearbit and Apollo?

You can, but it is almost always duplicate enrichment. Two tools writing to the same CRM fields creates conflicts and waste. Pick one source of truth.

Which has better data coverage?

Apollo has larger active contact coverage; Clearbit has a tighter US-B2B firmographic dataset and a mature reveal product. Run both against your ICP in a pilot — public claims are less useful than a records match rate on your actual TAM.

How does StackSwap help after I read this?

StackScan detects duplicate enrichment contracts, overlap with ZoomInfo/6sense/Clay, and models which provider earns the keep — so the enrichment decision lands on full-stack math.

Decision guide · 2026

Clearbit vs Apollo: Duplicate Enrichment in Most Stacks

Most teams running both are paying twice for the same records. The right pick depends on your CRM stack and whether you need data + outreach in one vendor.

Analyze your stack →

Benchmarked against 1,000+ modeled GTM stacks and 11+ weighted vendor datasets.

Quick verdict

Best for SMB: Apollo — data + outreach bundle eliminates a whole tool category for most SMB stacks.
Best for Enterprise: Clearbit (Breeze) — if you are HubSpot-native and the enrichment is bundled in the contract anyway.
Best for Data: Apollo has larger active coverage and usage-flexible pricing; Clearbit's dataset is US-B2B-focused and tighter for reveal.
Best for Ease of Use: Apollo for self-serve onboarding; Clearbit/Breeze for HubSpot-native teams.
Biggest Hidden Cost: Running both is the biggest waste. Individually: Apollo credit overages and Clearbit record tiers both creep.

Side-by-side

	Clearbit	Apollo.io
Pricing model	Historically per-record / tiered; now bundled as HubSpot Breeze Intelligence for HubSpot customers.	Per-seat + credit pool; usage flexibility at SMB-friendly pricing.
Core job	B2B enrichment, website reveal, form shortening — tight HubSpot/SFDC integration.	Enrichment + sequencing + buyer intent in one bundle, cheaper per seat.
Strengths	HubSpot-native depth post-acquisition; mature reveal product for ABM.	Broad coverage, AI-native enrichment flows, built-in outbound engagement.
Weaknesses	Roadmap uncertain post-HubSpot acquisition; weaker non-US coverage than aggregators.	Data accuracy is lead-verify-dependent; enterprise governance is lighter than ZoomInfo.
Ideal customer	HubSpot customers using Breeze as native enrichment; ABM teams doing reveal.	SMB and mid-market wanting one bundle for data + outbound at a predictable cost.
Hidden costs	Record tier jumps; parallel enrichment bill when Apollo/ZoomInfo also run.	Credit overages on high-volume enrichment; dual-tool waste when paired with Clearbit.
AI-readiness score (StackSwap lens)	60/100 — modeled from stack benchmarks, not a vendor score.	80/100 — same lens; use for relative posture, not absolutes.

Deep breakdown

Clearbit overview

What it does: B2B enrichment provider (now HubSpot Breeze Intelligence): firmographic data, website visitor reveal, form enrichment — historically the HubSpot-native enrichment spine.
Where it shines: HubSpot-centric stacks where Breeze is bundled or tightly integrated; ABM reveal plays where page-level visitor data matters.
Where it breaks: International and SMB coverage is weaker than aggregator-style alternatives; post-HubSpot roadmap consolidation leaves standalone Clearbit customers uncertain.
Typical stack usage: HubSpot + Clearbit + a SEP — a classic inbound-focused quartet. Risk: paying Clearbit alongside Apollo or ZoomInfo for the same records.

Apollo overview

What it does: AI-native GTM platform bundling data enrichment, contact prospecting, and sales engagement — sequencing and CRM sync included.
Where it shines: SMB and mid-market teams consolidating enrichment + outbound; usage-flexible pricing scales with motion without enterprise commits.
Where it breaks: Data accuracy can lag enterprise providers on niche segments; CRM-native workflows are shallower than Outreach + ZoomInfo.
Typical stack usage: HubSpot or Attio + Apollo + Gong — a lean AI-native loop. Apollo's bundle often eliminates a separate SEP and enrichment contract.

What most teams get wrong

Running Clearbit and Apollo together and calling it "coverage redundancy" — it is just duplicate enrichment with conflicting field logic. Teams paying for both ZoomInfo and Apollo are spending 2x for the same contact records in 90% of cases — Clearbit + Apollo is the same pattern at a slightly different price point.
Post-HubSpot acquisition, assuming Clearbit is still a separate line item to budget — many HubSpot customers got Breeze Intelligence bundled.
Buying Apollo "for data" and never retiring the legacy enrichment contract Apollo was supposed to replace.
Evaluating based on brochure coverage instead of actual records resolved against your ICP in a pilot.

Cost reality

Apollo commonly lands 3–5x cheaper than legacy standalone Clearbit for equivalent enrichment volume at mid-market scale, especially once you include Apollo's sequencing replacement of a separate SEP.

Clearbit as Breeze Intelligence inside HubSpot shifts the calculus — you may already be paying for it. The total stack bill is what matters, not the individual tool. Based on analysis of 1,000+ modeled GTM stacks, most GTM teams waste 30-40% of their stack spend on overlapping tools — enrichment duplication is one of the top contributors.

The killer cost is duplicate enrichment: teams pay Clearbit and Apollo for the same records, with field logic that conflicts and ops teams reconciling by hand. StackScan flags this overlap as one of the most common waste patterns.

Before you choose — run your stack

Before you renew either tool, pressure-test which enrichment vendor is the actual source of truth in your CRM. If both are writing to the same fields, you are paying twice for one decision.

StackScan maps enrichment coverage, flags duplicate contracts, and models what consolidation is worth — so the renewal conversation is defensible.

Use this comparison to frame the tradeoff; use StackScan to prove which enrichment vendor earns its contract.

Run your StackScan →

Final verdict

If you are HubSpot-native and Clearbit comes bundled as Breeze Intelligence, keep it and retire Apollo's enrichment credits to avoid duplicate spend.

If you are standalone (HubSpot pricing tier without Breeze, or on a different CRM), Apollo's bundle almost always wins on total cost — plus it eats a SEP line item in the process.

The provocation: one enrichment source of truth. Pick it, wire it cleanly, and delete the duplicate before renewal.

Best alternatives & next reads

When both can make sense (rare)

Only during a deliberate migration window — and those should close in 30–60 days. Beyond that, both tools writing to the same CRM fields is duplicate spend.

AI-native pressure

Apollo leans into AI-native enrichment and prospecting workflows. Clearbit's innovation path is now inside HubSpot Breeze. The edge goes to teams who pick one source of truth and wire it cleanly, not the one with the AI label.

Related comparisons

FAQ

Did HubSpot acquire Clearbit?: Yes — Clearbit was acquired by HubSpot and is now marketed as Breeze Intelligence, increasingly bundled into HubSpot plans. Standalone Clearbit is still available but the product center of gravity is HubSpot.
Can I use both Clearbit and Apollo?: You can, but it is almost always duplicate enrichment. Two tools writing to the same CRM fields creates conflicts and waste. Pick one source of truth.
Which has better data coverage?: Apollo has larger active contact coverage; Clearbit has a tighter US-B2B firmographic dataset and a mature reveal product. Run both against your ICP in a pilot — public claims are less useful than a records match rate on your actual TAM.
How does StackSwap help after I read this?: StackScan detects duplicate enrichment contracts, overlap with ZoomInfo/6sense/Clay, and models which provider earns the keep — so the enrichment decision lands on full-stack math.

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