Apollo vs ZoomInfo
Company enrichment, measured head-to-head on the same 282 human-reviewed companies: Apollo currently leads on both measured accuracy axes. Every scored field judged against human-reviewed Ground Truth; latency and cost measured beside accuracy. Not vendor claims.
Apollo or ZoomInfo — measured winner per axis
| Axis | Apollo | ZoomInfo | Measured winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correct data end to end (correct field yield) | 88.6% | 63.9% | Apollo |
| Right when returned (accuracy when present) | 92.6% | 70.4% | Apollo |
| Companies resolved (resolution rate) | 96.8% | 94.7% | Apollo |
| Speed (median latency) | 654 ms | 1,132 ms | Apollo |
| Cost (cohort, self-serve rates) (estimated cost) | $10.88 | $93.45 | Apollo |
Contact/person data, intent data, and integrations are not measured here — this is the company-firmographic slice only. Full leaderboard, methodology, and per-company evidence →
There is no single “best” company enrichment API — the independent benchmark points to a different provider depending on the axis your workflow is constrained by. Every leader below is measured on 282 human-reviewed companies:
- CRM data you can trust end to endPeople Data Labshighest enrichment success rate · 89.0%
- Few wrong values written — right when returnedApollohighest field accuracy · 92.6%
- Fill the most fields per companyParallelhighest field coverage · 94.7%
- Find the most companies overallPredict Leadshighest company match rate · 100.0%
- Real-time enrichment in product or agent flowsPeople Data Labslowest median latency · 274 ms
- Budget-constrained backfillsSeltzlowest estimated cost · $1.41 cohort
Full provider comparison, methodology, and per-company evidence: the company enrichment benchmark →
Apollo vs ZoomInfo — common questions
Apollo vs ZoomInfo: which has better company data?
On measured correct field yield (of the fields that could be filled correctly, how many were), Apollo leads: Apollo 88.6% vs ZoomInfo 63.9%, judged field-by-field against human-reviewed Ground Truth on the same 282-company cohort. On accuracy of returned fields, Apollo leads (92.6% vs 70.4%).
Is Apollo or ZoomInfo cheaper for company enrichment?
At public entry self-serve rates for the full 282-company cohort: Apollo $10.88 vs ZoomInfo $93.45 — Apollo is cheaper. Free allowances and volume discounts excluded; weigh cost against yield, since cheap wrong data costs more downstream.
Which is faster, Apollo or ZoomInfo?
Median request latency: Apollo 654 ms vs ZoomInfo 1,132 ms — Apollo is faster. Latency matters for real-time enrichment in product or agent flows; for batch backfills it usually doesn't.
Where does this comparison data come from?
The independent company-enrichment benchmark on this site: both providers received the same 282 company domains, responses were normalized to one contract, and GPT-5.6 judged each scored field against human-reviewed Ground Truth. No vendor pays for inclusion or rank; every judgment is public and reproducible.