Clay vs Gumloop
An independent, review-free comparison compiled by the SaaSTracker editorial team. Both products are profiled in full, and neither can pay for placement here.
The short answer
Editorial assessmentGumloop compared with Clay
The closest overlap for go-to-market buyers. Clay is a spreadsheet-shaped enrichment and outbound tool with dozens of data providers behind a waterfall, and it is better than Gumloop at the specific job of filling in contact and company data at list scale. Gumloop is broader and less opinionated: it can call the same providers but is really a general agent builder. Teams doing high-volume prospecting usually keep Clay; teams automating a wider set of internal processes end up on Gumloop, and plenty run both.
Choose Clay if
GTM engineers and data-savvy teams building automated, multi-provider enrichment and personalization pipelines.
Choose Gumloop if
Operations, revenue operations, and growth people who understand a process well enough to encode it but do not want to write and host code: Gumloop gives them agents with real tool access, a shared knowledge base, and per-run cost visibility, with no seat charge as the rest of the team starts using what they built.
Side by side
13 attributes| Attribute | Clay | Gumloop |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Data | GTM Engineering |
| Starting price | Free plan; paid from $149/mo (free plan available) | $37 per month (Pro, 20,000 credits included) (14 days trial) |
| Pricing model | Credit-based monthly tiers; provider calls and Claygent runs consume credits (only on successful hits for waterfalls). Feature gates (CRM write-back, webhooks) sit at tier boundaries. | Usage-based. Seats are unlimited on every plan and the meter is credits, where one credit is $0.005. Credits are consumed by model chat and reasoning tokens, tool calls (minimum one credit per successful call), compute time at roughly five credits per session-minute, and an 8 percent orchestration fee on top of those. Workflow runs bill the same way. Bring-your-own-key removes token charges but raises the orchestration fee on agent chats. |
| Free plan | 100 credits/month, core table features. | No |
| Free trial | 14 days (Pro features) | 14 days on Pro |
| Best for | GTM engineers and data-savvy teams building automated, multi-provider enrichment and personalization pipelines. | Operations, revenue operations, and growth people who understand a process well enough to encode it but do not want to write and host code: Gumloop gives them agents with real tool access, a shared knowledge base, and per-run cost visibility, with no seat charge as the rest of the team starts using what they built. |
| Setup time | First enriched table in an hour via templates; a production pipeline (sources, then waterfalls, then scoring, then delivery) typically takes 2-4 weeks to harden. | A first useful agent in an afternoon: connect two or three apps, write instructions, test in the canvas, then invite it into a Slack channel. A production process with triggers, error handling, and evaluations is more like a week of part-time work, most of which is spent discovering the edge cases in your own data. |
| Learning curve | The steepest in this report, genuinely a skill. Templates, the academy, and a large creator ecosystem (courses, agencies) flatten it substantially. | Low to start and moderate to do well. The canvas and the agent editor are approachable, but the skills that separate a demo from something dependable are prompt discipline, knowing when to force a step into a deterministic workflow instead of trusting the model, and reading the run log to find which node is consuming the credits. |
| Platforms | Web app, Chrome extension, REST API | Web application, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Email (per-agent inbox), Hosted agent pages with custom domains, Chrome extension, CLI |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, GDPR program | SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, Zero data retention options with model providers |
| Founded | 2017 | 2023 |
| Headquarters | New York City, US | San Francisco, California (founded in Vancouver, Canada) |
| Ownership | Venture-backed (private) | Independent, venture-backed (legal entity AgentHub Inc.) |
Strengths and limitations
Clay
Strengths
- Waterfall coverage decisively beats any single data provider.
- Claygent turns open-web research into a scalable, auditable pipeline step.
- Deep native integrations across the modern outbound stack (sequencers, CRMs, signals).
- Template/creator ecosystem compounds, proven workflows are one click away.
Limitations
- Real learning curve, tables, waterfalls, and prompt design reward (effectively require) a technical operator.
- Credit economics are powerful but unforgiving without active management.
- Not a proprietary data source; quality ceilings are its providers'.
- Enterprise governance (SSO, roles, audit) only matures at top tiers.
Gumloop
Strengths
- Unlimited seats on every plan, so adoption across a team costs nothing extra and the builder is not rationing access.
- Genuinely non-technical building surface that still reaches real systems, with roughly 300 connectors and first-class MCP support.
- Per-node credit and runtime reporting in the run log, which is better cost instrumentation than most automation platforms offer.
- Company Brain with permission-preserving indexing, which is what makes a shared Slack agent safe rather than a data leak waiting to happen.
Limitations
- The free plan was discontinued; evaluation is now a 14-day trial on a paid plan, which is a real barrier for a cautious small buyer.
- Credit consumption is hard to predict before you build. Users report a workflow going from one or two credits per run to dozens after a small change, and credits do not roll over on Pro.
- The 8 percent orchestration fee sits on top of model and tool costs, and rises on bring-your-own-key agent chats, so BYOK is less of a savings lever than it first appears.
- Pro concurrency is a wall, not a queue: 5 simultaneous workflow runs, then HTTP 429. Queuing is an Enterprise feature, which pushes any genuinely high-volume webhook use case upmarket.
Pricing compared
Clay
Credit-based monthly tiers; provider calls and Claygent runs consume credits (only on successful hits for waterfalls). Feature gates (CRM write-back, webhooks) sit at tier boundaries.
- Free$0
- Starter$149
- Explorer$349
- Pro$800
- EnterpriseCustom
Clay's effective price is workflow-dependent: well-designed tables deliver coverage and personalization no single vendor matches at any price, while naive configurations burn credits alarmingly. Teams treating credit design as part of the craft consistently report it as the stack's highest-ROI line item.
Gumloop
Usage-based. Seats are unlimited on every plan and the meter is credits, where one credit is $0.005. Credits are consumed by model chat and reasoning tokens, tool calls (minimum one credit per successful call), compute time at roughly five credits per session-minute, and an 8 percent orchestration fee on top of those. Workflow runs bill the same way. Bring-your-own-key removes token charges but raises the orchestration fee on agent chats.
- ProFrom $37
- EnterpriseCustom
The unlimited-seat model is the genuinely unusual part. A ten-person team pays the same $37 base as one person, which inverts the economics of nearly every competing tool and makes Gumloop cheap for the pattern it is designed around: one builder, many users. The offsetting risk is that the credit meter is opaque until you have run real work through it, and the removal of the free plan means you now discover your actual cost during a 14-day paid trial rather than over a leisurely month on a free tier. For a small business, the honest budgeting approach is to assume the $37 covers exploration and light production only, and to instrument the run log early so you know which agent is eating the month.
Editorial verdict on each
Clay
MomentumClay is the most consequential product in this report: it moved the center of outbound gravity from databases and sequencers to the orchestration layer between them, and its valuation sprint reflects substance, not froth. The costs are honest, a real learning curve and credit economics that punish sloppiness, but teams that invest in the craft get coverage, research, and personalization nothing else assembles. If your outbound has an engineer, this is their instrument.
Read the full Clay profileGumloop
Gumloop is the most credible no-code agent platform for a go-to-market team that has processes worth encoding and nobody free to write code. The unlimited-seat model is the standout commercial decision: one person builds, the whole company uses it, and the base subscription does not move. Company Brain with permission-aware indexing, skills that give the prompt layer a home, and evaluations that grade output are the parts competitors have not matched. The reasons for caution are commercial rather than technical. The free plan is gone, so evaluation now happens inside a 14-day paid trial; credits are hard to forecast, do not roll over, and carry an orchestration fee on top; and the governance features a compliance review will ask about live entirely on Enterprise. Buy it if the work you want automated genuinely needs judgment, budget for usage rather than a flat subscription, and instrument the run log from day one so you find out which agent is expensive before the invoice does.
Read the full Gumloop profileClay profile last reviewed 2026-08-22; Gumloop last reviewed 2026-08-23. Pricing is compiled from public sources and can change without notice. See our methodology.