Hlib Storchak · 2026-08-13 · ~10 min readQuick answer
Apollo is the bigger, cheaper, all-in-one platform: database plus sequencing plus a dialer, built for email-led, US-heavy volume. Lusha is the narrower browser-extension and enrichment tool that leans hardest on direct dials and mobile numbers. Both publish accuracy numbers I can't independently verify, and Lusha's own pages don't even agree with each other on database size. Pick on the job (bulk email list building vs phone-first prospecting), not on either vendor's headline percentage.
At a glance
Before the detail, here's the side-by-side I actually keep in my head when a client asks me to pick one over the other.
| Dimension | Apollo | Lusha |
|---|---|---|
| Self-published database size | 230M+ people, 30M+ companies | 290M+ contacts, 26M+ companies (one Lusha page); 300M+ direct dials, 30M companies (another) |
| Self-published email accuracy | 97% | 98% |
| Self-published phone accuracy | Not published as a single figure | 86% |
| Independent test figure (email) | ~73% per one cited third-party read; 80% in Cleanlist's comparison table | 80-85%, flagged as unverified in the same Cleanlist table |
| Product shape | All-in-one: database, sequencing, dialer, CRM sync | Browser extension and enrichment tool, plugs into your existing stack |
| Best-fit use case | US-heavy, email-first, bulk list building | Phone-first prospecting, director-level-and-up direct dials |
| Pricing model | Per-seat plans from around $49/user/month (annual), credit-based lookups | Per-seat plans with a credit allotment, free tier included |
What each tool is actually built to do
I'm Hlib Storchak. I build outbound systems for B2B founders and sales teams, and the lists behind those campaigns have fed work that adds up to over 2000 meetings booked for B2B clients. Apollo and Lusha both sell contact data, but they were built to solve different problems, and that difference explains most of what follows.
Apollo is a full sales platform. Contact and company data sit next to sequencing, a built-in dialer, and CRM sync, priced to scale with a per-seat, credit-based model. Lusha started, and still largely operates, as a browser extension: you install it, browse LinkedIn or a company site, and it reveals a verified email or phone number for the profile you're looking at. It has since added a web app and API, but the core product is still enrichment on demand rather than a full outbound platform.
What Apollo claims about its own data
On its own insights page, Apollo states:
- 230M+ people and 30M+ companies in its database.
- 97% email accuracy across that database.
- Nearly 100,000 paying customers and 2M+ users.
Other pages on Apollo's own site describe the database as "275M+ contacts," which is a different number from the 230M+ figure on the page above. That's not necessarily wrong, different pages get updated on different schedules, but it means even Apollo's own site doesn't give you one stable headline number to anchor on.
What Lusha claims, and where its own pages disagree
Lusha's own site states 98% email accuracy and 86% phone accuracy, drawn from what it describes as a crowdsourced contributor network of 1M+ users across 223,000+ organizations plus AI enrichment. On database size, though, Lusha's own pages don't agree with each other: one states 290M+ verified contacts and 26M+ companies, another states 300M+ direct dials, 152M+ emails, and 30M+ company profiles. Those aren't wildly different totals, but for a company whose entire pitch is data precision, having its own marketing pages disagree on the count is worth noticing before you trust either number to the decimal.
Tip. Whenever a vendor's own site gives you two different totals for the same metric, treat both as directional, not exact. Ask sales for the current number in writing before you budget off it, since the page you read today may not match the page a colleague reads next month.
What independent testing actually found
Third-party reads diverge from both vendors' own claims, and from each other. Cleanlist's Lusha vs Apollo comparison, dated March 7, 2026, puts Apollo's email accuracy at roughly 73% "based on independent testing and user reports" with no disclosed sample size, and flags Lusha's own 80-85% range as lacking real-time verification. Separately, Tomba's read of Apollo's database found that applying Apollo's own "Verified Emails" filter drops the listed 275M+ contacts down to 96M, meaning roughly 65% of what Apollo counts in its headline total carries an email Apollo itself doesn't call verified.
None of this means either vendor is lying. It means "accuracy" and "database size" get measured differently depending on who's doing the counting and what they're counting, verified vs. matched vs. deliverable vs. total records ever collected. The honest read is that no single percentage from either side settles which one will perform better on your actual target list.
Direct dials and mobiles: Lusha's real edge
Where the two consistently separate, across multiple third-party comparisons I looked at, is phone data. Lusha built its reputation on direct dials and mobile numbers for individual contacts, and reviewers who test both tools for calling-heavy motions repeatedly rank Lusha ahead of Apollo on connecting to the actual named contact, particularly for director-level and above. Apollo's phone data exists and has improved, but it wasn't the product's original focus and reviewers describe it as less consistent outside the US.
The mistake I see most often when a client hands me a list built purely off Apollo for a call-heavy campaign is a mobile-match rate that looks fine in the export and falls apart once reps start dialing. If calling is a real part of your motion, phone accuracy is the number to test for yourself before you commit, not email accuracy.
Email breadth and the verified-filter problem
Apollo's advantage runs the other way: raw email breadth at a lower per-lookup cost, especially for US-based, mid-market and larger accounts. The catch, per the Tomba read above, is that Apollo's total database count and its verified-email count are two very different numbers, so a "230M+ contacts" headline doesn't mean 230M+ deliverable emails. Lusha's email coverage is narrower in absolute terms but is the product's stated focus alongside phone data, which is why some independent tests put its unverified email range in a similar or slightly higher band than Apollo's despite the smaller headline database.
Product shape: enrichment tool vs sales platform
This is the part that actually decides fit for most teams I work with, more than any accuracy number. If you already run sequencing and dialing somewhere else (Salesforge, Smartlead, Outreach, whatever it is) and just need a fast way to pull a verified email or number while you're browsing LinkedIn or a target's site, Lusha's extension-first shape fits that workflow directly. If you want one platform that handles the database, the sequences, and the dialer without stitching three tools together, Apollo's all-in-one shape removes integration work Lusha was never built to solve.
Pricing model: credits, seats, and per-lookup cost
Apollo publishes pricing on its own site starting at roughly $49 per seat per month on annual billing, with a free tier and credit-based lookups where a phone reveal costs several times what an email reveal costs. Lusha also runs a per-seat, credit-based model with a free tier, but its published starting price and credit allotments have varied across its own pricing pages and third-party trackers I checked, which is the same inconsistency problem as the database-size numbers above. Check current pricing directly on each vendor's site before you budget, since credit ratios and tier limits on tools like this shift more often than the headline monthly price does.
A cost model: what 500 contacts a month actually costs
Here's a rough way to size the bill instead of guessing. Assume a monthly target of 500 verified contacts, split roughly 350 emails and 150 direct dials, a mix I see often on a call-plus-email outbound motion. Assume a typical credit ratio of 1 credit per email reveal and somewhere in the 8-10 credit range per phone reveal, since that's the band both vendors' own credit structures and third-party breakdowns land in as of this writing.
That works out to roughly 350 + (150 x 9) = 1,700 credits a month, give or take depending on the exact ratio your plan carries. At whatever your current per-credit rate works out to once you divide a plan's monthly price by its credit allotment, that 1,700-credit number is the figure to multiply, not the sticker price on the pricing page. Swap in your own real email-to-phone split and your own current credit ratio from each vendor's live pricing page, the maths only holds if the inputs are current.
Key takeaways
- Apollo is the bigger, cheaper, all-in-one platform. Lusha is the narrower, extension-first enrichment tool. That shape difference matters more than either accuracy number.
- Apollo's own pages state 230M+ people, 30M+ companies and 97% email accuracy, but a separate Apollo page states 275M+ contacts, a different number for the same metric.
- Lusha's own pages state 98% email and 86% phone accuracy, but disagree with each other on database size (290M+ contacts and 26M+ companies on one page, 300M+ direct dials and 30M+ companies on another).
- Independent reads diverge further: Cleanlist's March 2026 comparison puts Apollo's email accuracy near 73%, and Tomba's read found Apollo's own "verified" filter cuts its headline database by roughly 65%.
- Phone and mobile accuracy is the one area independent comparisons consistently favor Lusha. Email breadth at lower cost consistently favors Apollo.
- Build your own cost model from a credit ratio and your real email-to-phone split, then check both vendors' current pricing pages before you commit, since credit allotments and starting prices move.
Which I reach for, and when
If a client needs a broad, email-first list built fast, and sequencing and dialing in one place matters more than perfect phone data, I reach for Apollo. The price scales well at volume and the all-in-one shape saves integration work.
If the motion is calling-heavy, especially into director-level-and-up contacts, or the team already has a sequencer and dialer they like and just needs a fast, accurate lookup layer on top, I reach for Lusha. This is the setup I run for clients who call before they email: pull the direct dial with Lusha, then let the existing sequencer handle the rest.
Plenty of the teams I've worked with end up running both at different stages of the same list: Apollo for the first bulk pull, Lusha for a second pass on the accounts worth a phone call. That's not indecision, it's matching the tool to the step in the process, the same logic I'd apply to any two data vendors with a genuinely different core strength.
How to check this on your own list first
Pull 50 to 100 of your actual target accounts, the kind you're really going to prospect, and run them through a trial of both. Count matches yourself: email match and, if calling matters, mobile match specifically, broken out by seniority and region since accuracy skews on both. That's the same 30-minute check I run before recommending a data vendor to a client, and it tells you more than any accuracy percentage either vendor or a third-party benchmark will hand you for free.
FAQ
Is Lusha or Apollo more accurate for contact data?
There's no disclosed, independent, dated head-to-head test comparing both on the same sample that I could verify. Apollo's own pages claim 97% email accuracy but disagree with each other on database size. Lusha's own pages claim 98% email and 86% phone accuracy but also disagree with each other on database size. Test both against your own list before trusting either number.
Is Lusha better than Apollo for phone numbers?
Based on independent comparisons I reviewed, yes, direct dials and mobile numbers are consistently cited as Lusha's stronger area, especially for director-level and above contacts. Apollo's phone data has improved but is described as less consistent outside the US.
Is Apollo cheaper than Lusha?
Both run per-seat, credit-based pricing with a free tier, and both vendors' own pricing pages show figures that have shifted or disagreed with third-party trackers I checked. Check current pricing directly on each site before you budget, since packaging on tools like this changes often.
Can I use Lusha and Apollo together?
Yes, and I've seen it work well: Apollo for the first broad list pull, Lusha for a second pass on accounts worth a phone call. It adds a second tool and cost to manage, so it usually makes sense once calling is a real part of the motion, not just an occasional touch.
Which has the bigger database, Lusha or Apollo?
Depending on which page of each vendor's own site you read, the numbers overlap in the 230M to 300M contact range for both, and neither company's own materials agree internally on the exact figure. Treat any single headline number from either side as directional, not exact.