Clay vs Clearbit (2026): Clearbit is now Breeze Intelligence, so what do you actually compare?
Data sources Clay waterfalls
Clay tries source after source and only charges on a hit; Breeze reads one native dataset.
What Breeze requires to run
A paid HubSpot plan first, then Breeze credits on top; credits expire monthly. Clay runs standalone, seat-unlimited.
What each tool covers
Clay owns the first two and the last; Breeze owns the two HubSpot-native ones.
They do two different jobs (and one of them changed owners)
Clay
The independent orchestration layer
Enrich and automate across many sources, into any stack.
Clearbit → Breeze Intelligence
HubSpot-native enrichment
Enrich HubSpot records in place, with zero setup.
The fastest way to choose wrong is to compare them as if Clearbit is still the standalone API it used to be. It is not. Here is what each actually is in 2026:
- Best for raising data quality and automating list-building across any stack
- Unlimited seats; priced on usage credits; not tied to one CRM
- Powerful but a real learning curve; cost is usage-variable
- Best when your team already lives in HubSpot and wants in-context enrichment
- Zero integration work; enriches records where they already are
- Locked to HubSpot; one dataset, not a waterfall; credits expire monthly
Which one for your situation
Map your actual situation to the pick. This is the decision most "vs" pages skip, especially now that they are comparing to a Clearbit that no longer exists.
The real axis: independent vs native (and the lock-in that comes with it)
Because Clearbit is now Breeze, this is not a per-seat price race, it is a lock-in decision. Breeze is cheaper to add if you are already paying for HubSpot, because it enriches in place with no setup, but it only works inside HubSpot and its credits expire monthly. Clay costs more at the base but runs standalone with unlimited seats and feeds any stack. The honest cost comparison has to include the HubSpot subscription Breeze requires.
| Dimension | Clearbit → Breeze Intelligence | Clay | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entry cost | ~$30 to $45/seat credits + HubSpot (~$15/seat) | $185 base, unlimited seats | Breeze if already on HubSpot |
| Data model | One native dataset | 50+ providers, waterfalled | Clay |
| Where it works | HubSpot only | Any CRM or sequencer | Clay (no lock-in) |
| Setup | Zero, native | Wire into your stack; learning curve | Breeze |
| Credit behavior | Expire monthly, no rollover | Usage credits, charged on a hit | Depends on volume |
Read it as a fork, not a flip: if HubSpot is your system of record and you want the least work, Breeze wins on convenience. If you refuse to tie enrichment to one CRM or you need match rates a single dataset cannot hit, Clay wins on independence and depth. Convenience versus control is the whole decision.
Since Clearbit became Breeze, this is not a price race, it is convenience versus control.Independent vs native
The stack that runs both
HubSpot teams often run Breeze and Clay for different jobs
Breeze enriches inbound records natively in HubSpot with no setup. Clay builds and waterfall-enriches targeted outbound lists from many sources, then pushes them into HubSpot. Breeze handles the easy native work; Clay handles the custom, multi-source work Breeze cannot.
If you only have budget for one and you already pay for HubSpot, Breeze is the cheapest way to add enrichment, since it needs no integration. Add Clay when a single dataset stops hitting your match-rate needs or when you want enrichment and automation that are not confined to HubSpot. If you are not on HubSpot at all, Breeze is not really on the table, and Clay (or another independent tool) is the enrichment layer.
Which has better data
For accuracy on hard-to-find contacts, Clay generally wins, because a waterfall across 50-plus providers beats any single dataset and only charges when a source succeeds. Breeze's strength is not raw depth, it is context: it enriches the exact HubSpot records your team already works, with no export, no import, and no wiring. So the honest read is Breeze for frictionless native enrichment inside HubSpot, Clay for the highest match rates and multi-source automation anywhere. If your data problem is "the records in HubSpot are thin," Breeze fixes it fastest; if it is "we cannot find these people at all," Clay's waterfall is the better bet.
See the pair in context in our Clay vs Apollo breakdown and the full field in best AI sales tools for outbound teams, check the raw numbers in the AI GTM tools index, or read the narrower copilot slice at Nesyona's best AI sales copilots.
Frequently asked questions
Is Clearbit still available in 2026?
Is Clay or Breeze Intelligence (Clearbit) better in 2026?
How much does Clearbit (Breeze Intelligence) cost now?
Can Clay replace Clearbit or Breeze Intelligence?
Do teams use Clay and HubSpot Breeze together?
If your data problem is thin HubSpot records, Breeze fixes it fastest; if you cannot find these people at all, Clay's waterfall wins.Better data
Bottom line
Stop comparing Clay to a Clearbit that no longer exists. In 2026 the choice is Clay's independent orchestration versus HubSpot-native Breeze Intelligence. If your team lives in HubSpot and you want the least work, Breeze enriches your records in place for roughly $30 to $45 per seat in credits on top of your HubSpot plan. If you run any other CRM, refuse to lock enrichment to HubSpot, or need match rates a single dataset cannot hit, Clay is the provider-agnostic waterfall from $185 with unlimited seats. Many HubSpot teams run both: Breeze for native inbound enrichment, Clay for multi-source outbound. Size the whole motion in the AI stack optimizer or see the field in best AI sales tools.
- Clay pricing and plans (verified July 2026).
- HubSpot Breeze Intelligence (formerly Clearbit) pricing and acquisition status (verified July 2026).