Lusha vs Clay (GTM Data Enrichment) Pricing (2026)

Lusha vs Clay (GTM Data Enrichment)

AI Sales Tools pricing comparison · 2026

Lusha pricing ranges from $0–$399.9/user/month, while Clay (GTM Data Enrichment) ranges from $0–$800/month. Lusha is typically 65% more affordable, though your actual cost depends on tier and team size.

AI Sales Tools

Lusha

$0–$399.9
/user/month
5 plans · Free tier
Full pricing breakdown →
VS
AI Sales Tools

Clay (GTM Data Enrichment)

$0–$800
/month
4 plans · Free tier
Full pricing breakdown →

Lusha and Clay (GTM Data Enrichment) both operate in the ai sales tools category. This page compares their list pricing.

Plan-by-Plan Pricing

Plan Lusha Clay (GTM Data Enrichment)
Free Free / Free /month
Starter $49.90 / $149 /month
Pro $69.90 / $349 /month
Premium $399.90 / $800
Scale Custom

Hidden Costs

Beyond the sticker price — what catches buyers off guard.

Lusha 7 hidden costs

medium
Credit System Limitations and Overage Costs 20-40% of license costs
medium
Supplemental Tools Needed for Full Coverage 10-20% of license costs for supplemental tools
high
Aggressive Auto-Renewal and Cancellation Difficulties Full annual renewal charge if not canceled in advance
medium
Premium Plan Seat Costs Add Up Quickly $399.90/month per additional seat on Premium
medium
Data Accuracy Issues Requiring Verification 5-15% of license costs
See all Lusha hidden costs →

Clay (GTM Data Enrichment) 3 hidden costs

high
Enterprise License Potentially Required for Full CRM Integration 20-50% of license costs
medium
Credit/Token-Based Overage Costs 10-30% of license costs
medium
Potential Agency Pricing Structure Changes 5-15% of license costs
See all Clay (GTM Data Enrichment) hidden costs →

Contract Terms

Term Lusha Clay (GTM Data Enrichment)
Auto-renewal Yes
Cancellation Not specified in sources
Minimum commitment Monthly or annual options available
Price escalation Not documented in available sources Rumored future pricing changes that could affect agency accounts; no confirmed uplift schedule found in sources.