Apollo.io and ZoomInfo represent two fundamentally different approaches to B2B data. ZoomInfo is the enterprise incumbent — comprehensive, expensive, and dominant. Apollo is the disruptor — aggressive pricing, a usable free tier, and a product-led growth model that's eating ZoomInfo's market share from the bottom up.
Here's how they actually compare in 2026.
Data Quality and Coverage
ZoomInfo's Data
ZoomInfo has the most comprehensive B2B database in the market. 100+ million business profiles, direct dials, verified emails, org charts, technographic data, and intent signals. Their data team combines proprietary collection methods, contributory data networks, and AI-driven verification.
Strengths:
- Broadest coverage, especially for enterprise accounts
- Direct dial accuracy is industry-leading (though still imperfect)
- Technographic and firmographic data depth
- Intent data from their proprietary network
- Org chart mapping and hierarchy data
Weaknesses:
- Data freshness varies — some records are months old
- Email bounce rates of 10-15% are common
- Direct dial accuracy drops for mid-market and SMB contacts
- Non-US coverage is weaker than domestic
Apollo's Data
Apollo.io has built a database of 250+ million contacts (by their count) through a different model — combining purchased data, user-contributed data (their Chrome extension feeds data back), and AI enrichment. The database is massive but with different quality characteristics than ZoomInfo.
Strengths:
- Massive contact volume at a fraction of the price
- Email data is surprisingly accurate (verified with their sending infrastructure)
- Real-time enrichment fills gaps dynamically
- Free tier provides genuine access to the database
- Built-in engagement tools (sequences, dialer) — no separate tool needed
Weaknesses:
- Direct dial accuracy is significantly lower than ZoomInfo
- Less depth in technographic and firmographic data
- Intent data is less sophisticated
- Data quality is less consistent across segments
- Enterprise account coverage has gaps
Data Accuracy Head-to-Head
In independent testing (various sales communities and analysts):
- Email accuracy: ZoomInfo 85-90% deliverable, Apollo 80-87% deliverable
- Direct dial accuracy: ZoomInfo 55-70% connect rate, Apollo 35-50% connect rate
- Title accuracy: Both ~85-90%
- Company data freshness: ZoomInfo slightly better, both lag by 1-3 months
The gap has narrowed significantly since 2023. Apollo's data quality has improved faster than ZoomInfo's pricing has decreased.
Pricing: The Elephant in the Room
This is where Apollo wins decisively for most teams:
ZoomInfo:
- Professional: $150-200/user/month
- Advanced: $200-280/user/month
- Elite: $280-400/user/month
- Minimum contract: $15K-25K/year
- Full pricing breakdown
Apollo.io:
- Free: $0 (50 credits/month, basic features)
- Basic: $49/user/month (unlimited email credits)
- Professional: $79/user/month (advanced filters, intent data)
- Organization: $99/user/month (API access, advanced analytics)
For a 20-person team:
- ZoomInfo: $36,000-96,000/year
- Apollo: $11,880-23,760/year
That's a 2-5x price difference. For most mid-market teams, the marginal data quality improvement from ZoomInfo doesn't justify 3x the cost.
Feature Comparison Beyond Data
Engagement Tools
Apollo includes built-in sequences, email campaigns, and a dialer — you get prospecting data AND engagement tools in one platform. This eliminates the need for a separate Outreach or SalesLoft license.
ZoomInfo has basic engagement features but most teams still need a separate sales engagement platform.
Winner: Apollo. Getting data + engagement in one tool is a massive cost and complexity advantage.
Intent Data
ZoomInfo's intent data comes from their Bidstream data network and is more comprehensive. You can track which companies are researching specific topics with reasonable accuracy.
Apollo's intent data is newer and less sophisticated. It exists, and it's useful for basic account prioritization, but it's not a substitute for ZoomInfo's (or 6sense's) intent capabilities.
Winner: ZoomInfo, but only if intent data is critical to your workflow.
Enrichment API
Both offer enrichment APIs, but ZoomInfo's API is more mature, better documented, and supports more complex queries. For teams building custom data pipelines or integrating with data warehouses, ZoomInfo's API wins.
Who Should Choose What
Choose ZoomInfo if:
- You have 100+ reps and need enterprise-grade data infrastructure
- Direct dial accuracy is critical (insurance, financial services)
- Intent data drives your account-based strategy
- Budget isn't the primary constraint
Choose Apollo if:
- You're a mid-market team (10-100 reps) optimizing for ROI
- You want data + engagement in one tool
- Email prospecting is your primary outbound channel
- You're currently spending too much on ZoomInfo and getting marginal return
Choose Pingd if:
- Your actual problem isn't "who to call" but "what to say and when to call"
- You need intelligence, not just data
- You want an AI agent that synthesizes signals and recommends actions
- Compare Pingd vs ZoomInfo | Compare Pingd vs Apollo
For the full pricing landscape, see our sales intelligence pricing comparison.