Clearbit alternatives, measured
Clearbit's standalone enrichment API is a sunset product after the HubSpot acquisition — new API keys are no longer issued, and programmatic enrichment now requires a HubSpot (Breeze Intelligence) contract. If you used Clearbit as a self-serve company enrichment API, you need a replacement.
Most “Clearbit alternatives” lists are affiliate content. This one is measured: seven self-serve enrichment APIs, the same 300 identity-verified companies, judged field by field against LinkedIn-backed reference data — with cost at public self-serve rates.
Seven Clearbit alternatives on measured data
Ranked by correct field yield — of the fields that could be filled correctly, how many were. Cost is estimated at each provider's public entry self-serve rate for the full 300-company cohort:
| # | Provider | Correct field yield | Accuracy when present | Median latency | Est. cost (cohort) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People Data Labs | 86.7% | 88.6% | 274 ms | $29.50 |
| 2 | Fiber | 86.1% | 87.1% | 602 ms | $11.80 |
| 3 | Ocean.io | 85.3% | 86.3% | 534 ms | $1.92 |
| 4 | Apollo | 84.2% | 87.8% | 656 ms | $11.58 |
| 5 | PredictLeads | 83.8% | 88.7% | 555 ms | $12.00 |
| 6 | Explorium | 74.1% | 87.6% | 617 ms | $23.40 |
| 7 | CompanyEnrich | 71.1% | 73.7% | 309 ms | $2.94 |
Scope note: this measures company-level firmographic enrichment (seven fields from a domain). If your Clearbit usage was contact/person enrichment or reveal-style visitor identification, those workloads are not measured here — treat vendor accuracy claims on them accordingly. Full 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 300 identity-verified companies:
- CRM data you can trust end to endPeople Data Labshighest correct field yield · 86.7%
- Few wrong values written — right when returnedPredictLeadshighest accuracy when present · 88.7%
- Fill the most fields per companyFiberhighest attribute coverage · 97.2%
- Long-tail / international companies must resolveOcean.iohighest resolution rate · 100.0%
- Real-time enrichment in product or agent flowsPeople Data Labslowest median latency · 274 ms
- Budget-constrained backfillsOcean.iolowest estimated cost · $1.92 cohort
Full leaderboard, methodology, and per-company evidence: the company enrichment benchmark →
Clearbit alternatives — common questions
What happened to Clearbit?
HubSpot acquired Clearbit and folded it into Breeze Intelligence. The standalone enrichment API developers built against is a sunset product: new API keys are no longer issued, and programmatic enrichment now requires a HubSpot contract. Teams that used Clearbit as a self-serve enrichment API need a replacement.
What is the best Clearbit alternative?
Depends on your constraint, so here are the measured answers on 300 identity-verified companies: most correct data end to end — People Data Labs (86.7% correct field yield); fewest wrong values among returned fields — PredictLeads (88.7%); cheapest at public self-serve rates — Ocean.io ($1.92 for the cohort); fastest — People Data Labs (274 ms median). All seven alternatives are measured on identical inputs below.
Is there a cheap Clearbit alternative?
At entry self-serve rates, Ocean.io was cheapest for this cohort ($1.92 total). Each provider's per-unit rate and pricing page are listed in the benchmark's cost methodology. Weigh cost against measured yield — cheap wrong data is expensive.
Is Breeze Intelligence (Clearbit's successor) in this benchmark?
No — Breeze Intelligence is sold inside HubSpot rather than as a self-serve enrichment API, so it can't be tested on identical terms alongside API providers. Its accuracy is a vendor claim until measured. The seven providers here all expose a self-serve, seed-in / fields-out API and were measured on the same 300 companies.
How were these alternatives measured?
Every provider received the same 300 identity-verified company domains (including subsidiaries and recent rebrands — the hard cases). Responses were normalized to one seven-field contract and judged field-by-field by GPT-5.6 against LinkedIn-backed reference data. No vendor pays for inclusion or rank; all inputs, outputs, and judgments are public and reproducible.