Clay
- Category
- Data enrichment
- Type
- commercial
- Scope
- Claygent and enrichment features
- Source
- Vendor site
- Last reviewed
- 2026-10-19 (what this means)
Citation check incomplete — recheck later.
Summary
Clay is a commercial data-enrichment platform; this entry covers its AI research agent (Claygent) and enrichment features. Public evidence consists mainly of vendor materials, including internal benchmarks, plus small self-published practitioner tests and user-review aggregates. We found no independent benchmark of Claygent's accuracy, so no overall score is given. Insufficient evidence. Informational only; not a guarantee, endorsement, or certification.
Status: Insufficient evidence — no overall score is given (fewer than three independent performance sources). Independent performance sources: 0.
Factor notes (no scores)
| Factor | Weight | Score | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completion rate | 30% | — | No independent completion or accuracy data; only vendor-internal figures and small practitioner tests. |
| Disputes | 20% | — | No lawsuits, regulatory actions, or data-protection complaints concerning Clay were found. |
| Adherence to limits | 25% | — | The vendor documents credit allowances, per-run budgets, and API rate limits; not independently tested. |
| Evidence quality | 25% | — | No independent evaluations found; available evidence is vendor, partner marketing, secondary, and anecdotal. |
See the methodology for the insufficient-evidence rule.
Uncertainties
- No independent benchmark of Claygent's accuracy was found.
- Practitioner tests are small and self-published, use differing methods, and one grades against Clay's own output.
- Claygent's available models change frequently, so test results may age quickly.
- Vendor accuracy figures are vendor claims, not findings.
- User-review aggregates are anecdotal; Trustpilot's sample is small and its page could not be fetched automatically.
- Citation check still incomplete (Decision 0080, 19 Oct 2026): an OpenAlex full-text search for "Claygent" found one passing mention and no test; Semantic Scholar was unavailable (rate-limited). Recheck later.
- Two tests published by competing vendors (Sixtyfour, SyncGTM) report Clay figures; they are listed but not counted.
Sources
- Clay blog: GPT-5 in Claygent (vendor claim based on an internal, unpublished test set; not a finding) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay University: vendor-run test of personal-email data providers (vendor claim; covers providers, not Claygent) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay University: plans and billing (credit allowances, top-ups) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay University: AI tokens (per-run budgets, output caps, own-key provider tier minimums) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay developer docs: API rate limits (HTTP 429 with Retry-After) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay Data Processing Addendum (describes controller/processor roles) — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- Clay privacy policy — vendor or maintainer, accessed 2026-10-16
- OpenAI customer story on Clay (partner marketing) — customer or partner, accessed 2026-10-16; could not be fetched automatically (HTTP 403)
- ZenML LLMOps Database: summary of Clay's evaluation practices (secondary; summarizes a Clay presentation) — independent other, accessed 2026-10-16
- LinkedIn post: 10-row comparison of Claygent models (anecdotal practitioner) — anecdotal, accessed 2026-10-16
- LinkedIn post: 1,000-task coverage test (accuracy not evaluated) (anecdotal practitioner) — anecdotal, accessed 2026-10-16
- LinkedIn post: 100-row comparison graded against Clay's own output (anecdotal practitioner) — anecdotal, accessed 2026-10-16
- G2: user-review aggregate (232 reviews); G2 task evaluation listed as not evaluated (anecdotal aggregate) — anecdotal, accessed 2026-10-16
- Trustpilot: user-review aggregate (anecdotal aggregate; small sample, about 9 reviews) — anecdotal, accessed 2026-10-16; could not be fetched automatically (HTTP 403)
- Sixtyfour (sells a competing research agent), LinkedIn post (Feb 2026): 184 leads run through Sixtyfour, Parallel and Clay; reports Clay 66% accuracy against 93% for its own product; method said to be on its blog (not reviewed) (competitor benchmark; not independent) — competitor, accessed 2026-10-19
- SyncGTM review (Mar 2026, updated Sep 2026): 30-day test by a vendor that presents itself as a Clay alternative; reports a 78% email match rate on a 2,000-contact list and Claygent answers correct 70-80% of the time on narrow tasks; no data or detailed method published (competitor review; not independent) — competitor, accessed 2026-10-19