.png)
Outbound sales lives and dies by data. Every SDR manager knows the frustration: you buy a “10,000 lead list,” only to find that half the emails bounce and most of the phone numbers connect you to company receptionists.
Every enrichment vendor promises “best-in-class data.” But who really delivers?
To find out, we ran a 1,000-lead test across four of the most popular enrichment platforms: Clay, ZoomInfo, Lusha, and Cleanlist. We measured how many valid emails and phone numbers each provider returned. The results show just how wide the performance gap really is in 2025.
How We Ran the Test
- Sample Size: 1,000 raw leads from multiple industries and geographies.
- Process: Each list was uploaded into the provider’s enrichment tool with identical inputs (first name, last name, company, domain).
- Verification: Emails were validated with SMTP pinging and risk scoring. Phones were tested for working connections.
- Metrics: We tracked (1) total emails returned, (2) verified valid emails, and (3) direct dials vs switchboard numbers.
This gave us an apples-to-apples benchmark of performance across providers.
The Results at a Glance
- 930 emails (93% coverage)
- 642 phone numbers (564% coverage)
- Strong balance, especially for emails
- 870 emails (87% coverage)
- 410 phone numbers (41% coverage)
- Deep US coverage, weaker on phones
- 890 emails (89% coverage)
- 460 phone numbers (46% coverage)
- Decent overall, but inconsistent
Cleanlist
- 960 verified emails (96% coverage)
- 710 phone numbers (71% coverage)
- Highest in both categories thanks to waterfall enrichment
Clay: Workflow-First, Solid Coverage
Clay has become popular among growth hackers for its workflow automation and integrations. In our test, it delivered 930 emails (93% coverage) and 642 phones (64%). That’s impressive, especially considering its focus on flexibility rather than raw data coverage.
The strength of Clay is its ability to pipe in multiple data sources via integrations. But out of the box, its enrichment performance doesn’t hit the same heights as a dedicated multi-source engine like Cleanlist. Still, for teams already using Clay for automation, its enrichment layer is respectable.
ZoomInfo: The Incumbent Giant
ZoomInfo is still the biggest name in B2B data. With decades of experience, massive sales teams, and deep integrations, it remains a market leader.
But our test showed some cracks. ZoomInfo returned 870 emails (87%) and just 410 phones (41%). While its email coverage is solid, its phone coverage lags significantly. This aligns with what many teams have reported: ZoomInfo is strong in US-based firmographics and company-level intelligence, but weaker in international coverage and direct dials.
For enterprise teams focused on account-level data and firmographics, ZoomInfo is still powerful. For outbound teams focused on raw connects and conversations, it leaves a gap.
Lusha: Decent but Inconsistent
Lusha delivered 890 emails (89%) and 460 phones (46%) in our test. The results were mixed: some records came back with excellent data, while others had little to no useful information.
Lusha’s appeal has always been its affordability and ease of use. It’s widely adopted by smaller sales teams and SDRs. But at scale, the inconsistency becomes a challenge.
If you’re running small outbound campaigns and want a budget-friendly tool, Lusha can deliver decent results. But compared to Clay or Cleanlist, it underperforms in both emails and phones.
Cleanlist: The Waterfall Advantage
Finally, we ran the test through Cleanlist.
The results: 960 verified emails (96% coverage) and 710 phone numbers (71%) — the highest in the industry.
Why the difference? Cleanlist doesn’t rely on a single database. Instead, it uses a waterfall enrichment engine that queries over 10 of the world’s top data providers in ranked order. If Provider A can’t find an email, Provider B, C, or D will — until every field is filled. Every result is then validated in real time with SMTP checks and risk scoring.
This multi-source approach eliminates vendor blind spots. Where ZoomInfo is US-heavy, another provider fills the gap in Europe. Where Lusha is inconsistent, Cleanlist smooths results with redundancy. The outcome is simple: higher coverage, lower bounce rates, and more direct dials.
Why Phone Numbers Matter More Than Ever
Email deliverability is only getting harder. In early 2024, Google and Yahoo introduced stricter email authentication and engagement requirements for bulk senders (Google’s sender requirements). That means bounce rates and low-engagement emails are penalized more aggressively than ever.
As inboxes get stricter, phone calls are staging a comeback. SDRs who can reach decision-makers directly via mobile have a massive advantage. That’s why Cleanlist’s 71% phone coverage is a game-changer — it unlocks a channel that most vendors underserve.
What This Means for Outbound Teams
The days of buying massive, cheap lists are over. A list with 10,000 “emails” from a single vendor may sound big, but if 20–30% of those bounce or go to role accounts, you’ve just tanked your domain and wasted your SDRs’ time.
Modern outbound requires:
- High verified email coverage (to avoid bounce penalties)
- Strong phone coverage (to diversify channels)
- Real-time verification and ICP scoring (to prioritize who to reach)
In our test, Cleanlist is the only platform that hits all three.
The Takeaway
Here’s the honest breakdown:
- Clay is a great workflow tool with solid enrichment, but not designed for max coverage.
- ZoomInfo is still the enterprise giant, but weaker on phones.
- Lusha is decent at small scale, inconsistent at volume.
- Cleanlist delivers the highest verified emails and phones in the industry, powered by multi-source waterfall enrichment.
If outbound is a game of conversations, Cleanlist creates more of them than anyone else.
👉 Want to see how your lists perform? Book a Cleanlist demo.
.png)
.svg)
.png)
.png)
.svg)
.svg)