Apollo vs ZoomInfo

By Jan Suski, six years working in digital. How the scoring works.

Apollo publishes every price on its website. ZoomInfo publishes none, and its licence terms classify pricing as confidential information. That single difference decides most of this comparison, because a buyer can model Apollo's cost to the dollar before talking to anyone, and can only model ZoomInfo's from procurement data other buyers left behind.

This page prices both sales intelligence platforms against one scenario, ten seats prospecting into US mid-market companies, and traces every figure to a vendor document, an SEC filing or aggregated procurement data with the date it was read. It covers pricing plans, contact database size, data accuracy claims, intent data access, credit rules, contract exit terms and the corporate position of both companies in August 2026.

It's written for a sales operations lead or a founder holding a quote and trying to work out what the second year costs. That matters because the renewal, the credit cap and the cancellation notice window do more damage to a budget than the headline seat price, and none of the three appear on the comparison tables ranking for this query.

Both products sell lead generation. Apollo sells it as a subscription with a published number attached; ZoomInfo sells it as a negotiated contract whose commercial terms its own licence classifies as confidential.

↑ COMPARISONWhat Apollo and ZoomInfo cost for a ten-seat sales team

One scenario runs through this whole page: ten seats, US prospecting, roughly 4,000 record exports per seat per month, one dialer, CRM sync to Salesforce. Both platforms price on incompatible units, so nothing else makes them comparable. Apollo vs ZoomInfo on cost only means something once both sides are converted into that one scenario.

Apollo per-seat prices, annual against monthly billing.

Apollo's published pricing plans

Apollo sells four tiers. Free at $0, Basic at $49 per seat per month on annual billing, Professional at $79, and Organization at $119 with a three-seat floor. On monthly billing the same tiers read $65, $99 and $149, a spread Apollo describes on its pricing page as a 24% annual saving (accessed 8 August 2026).

Credits are the real unit. Basic grants 30,000 credits per seat per year, Professional 48,000, Organization 72,000. An email costs one credit, a phone number costs eight, and the US dialer burns two credits per minute. Ten Professional seats therefore land at $9,480 per year with 480,000 credits.

Organization is where the security controls sit. SSO, advanced security configuration, customisable dashboards and the option to run Apollo against your own LLM API key all appear at $119 and nowhere below it. Ten Organization seats cost $14,280 a year.

Transparent pricing is the whole point of the exercise. All three paid plans, their credit allowances and their per-seat rates sit on one public page, so a finance team can model higher tier plans before anyone books a demo.

Advanced features cluster at the top on both sides. Apollo gates SSO and custom LLM keys behind Organization; ZoomInfo gates real-time and custom intent signals behind Copilot Enterprise. Advanced features priced that way turn the entry tier into an extended trial.

ZoomInfo's custom pricing and the median contract buyers sign

ZoomInfo's pricing page carries one call to action, a lead form. The only numbers on it are allocations: Marketing Demand includes 75,000 credits and 25 intent topics, ABM Lite raises the ceiling to 100 intent topics, ABM Enterprise includes 150,000 credits and removes the topic cap (accessed 8 August 2026).

Vendr's marketplace page for ZoomInfo puts the median annual contract at $33,500, with a low of $7,200 and a high of $155,280, and average negotiated savings of 21.81%. The deal count on that page contradicts itself, reading 1,012 in the header stat block and 1,569 in the median widget, so treat the sample as roughly 1,000 to 1,600 closed contracts. Page last updated February 2026, and the same pattern of quoted-against-tracked figures runs through the wider market intelligence platform pricing data.

ZoomInfo's database is sold the opposite way. The extensive database, the intent add-on and the integration credits get quoted as one number, and section 5.2 of the licence makes that number confidential.

Against the ten-seat scenario, the median ZoomInfo contract costs about 3.5 times ten Apollo Professional seats. The high end costs sixteen times as much.

Apollo credit allowance per seat per year, by tier.

The two numbers ZoomInfo has never published

Two figures dominate this keyword's search results. One is a $14,995 Professional plan covering five users. The other is an $85,781 average contract value. Neither appears on any page ZoomInfo owns.

The $14,995 figure exists only on third-party comparison blogs, none of which cite a primary document, alongside companion claims of $1,500 per additional seat and 5,000 annual bulk credits. The $85,781 figure traces back through Warmly's comparison post to a Vendr buyer guide; Vendr's live marketplace page now shows $33,500. A stale citation got copied forward for years.

Use the tracked median & say how many purchases sit behind it. That's the honest form of a number nobody publishes authoritatively. Transparent pricing removes the failure mode entirely, because a published rate card takes one click to check and a confidential one gets reconstructed from blog posts.

ZoomInfo tracked contract spread, Vendr data read February 2026.

↑ COMPARISONContact data coverage: ZoomInfo vs Apollo on contact database size

Apollo publishes 240 million verified contacts across 30 million companies on its B2B data product page. Its own pages disagree on the round number, with the search product page giving the same 240 million against 30 million companies and an older marketing page citing higher figures.

ZoomInfo's own comparison material claims 500 million contacts, 100 million companies, 135 million verified phone numbers and 200 million validated emails (page updated 14 June 2026). Both sets are vendor marketing claims. Neither has been audited by anyone outside the company that published it, which is the standing problem across every B2B contact database on the market.

Raw size decides less than buyers expect. Apollo states that 150 million contacts are refreshed monthly, 72 million emails verified monthly and 5.3 million new contacts added monthly, which is a throughput claim about maintenance instead of a stock claim about volume.

Company data and detailed company profiles

ZoomInfo's advantage on company data is corporate hierarchy. Its GTM Context Graph processes 1.5 billion data points daily, and its detailed company profiles carry parent-subsidiary mapping that matters when the buying committee sits three legal entities away from the one your rep found.

Apollo's account data is flatter. It carries firmographics, technographics, job title seniority and headcount by company size, and its advanced search filters run to 65 published filter types, enough for most account research inside a single-entity target market.

Multiple industries with heavy conglomerate structure, defence, pharma, industrial manufacturing, are the case where the hierarchy gap shows up in a rep's day.

Neither product substitutes for market research. Both describe companies that exist; neither sizes a market that might.

Published contact and company counts, each vendor self-reported.

↑ COMPARISONData quality: data accuracy claims from each data provider

Apollo publishes a 98% email accuracy rate and states that fewer than 1% of its direct phone numbers are invalid, both from a seven-step verification process fed by a two million member data contributor network. Its search product page claims 98.5% for the same process, so Apollo contradicts itself by half a point across two of its own URLs.

ZoomInfo doesn't publish a single headline accuracy figure. Comparison blogs quote a 90 to 98% band; no ZoomInfo-owned page carries it. What ZoomInfo does publish is that its database updates in real time and that user contributions feed the refresh cycle.

Accurate data is a claim every data provider makes. Data quality figures are self-reported by definition, so the guarantee behind the figure is the part worth reading.

Outdated contacts and refund policy

Apollo refunds credits for a bounced email if you send to a verified address within 30 days of requesting it, with the refund landing in the next billing cycle. Mobile phone numbers carry no refund at all, and flagging a record as inaccurate returns nothing.

That asymmetry is worth pricing. A phone number costs eight credits against an email's one, and the eight-credit item is the one with no recourse when it turns out to be an outdated contact.

ZoomInfo's licence terms contain no equivalent credit-refund clause.

Published accuracy claims on both sides.

↑ COMPARISONFree plan limits and free tier access: ZoomInfo vs Apollo

Apollo's free plan grants 900 credits per seat per year, released as 75 per month, with a record selection limit of 25, two sequences per team, one intent topic and 250 daily email sends. It's a working free tier for a solo founder and a demo for anyone else.

ZoomInfo offers a 7-day free trial with no credit card required. Its own trial page says the length varies by promotion, company size, industry, package and if a sales rep is involved, and covers contact and company search, intent signals and email outreach "with usage limits". No credit number is published.

Seven days against a permanent free plan changes how each product gets evaluated. One gets tested by the team that will use it. The other gets tested by whoever can clear a week.

Free access on each platform.

↑ COMPARISONCredits, exports and documented limits on Apollo and ZoomInfo

Apollo's credits expire at the end of each billing cycle and don't roll over, a rule stated both in its knowledge base and in section 4.4.2 of its terms of service. Annual plans release the full year's credits at cycle start, which softens the rule without removing it.

Import volume is capped on a rolling seven-day window and scaled to spend: 100,000 rows at $1,000 of annual spend, 500,000 at $5,000, three million at $20,000, ten million at $100,000. CSV enrichment files cap at 50MB and 100,000 rows.

ZoomInfo's licence terms define a credit as one export of a professional or company profile, from the platform, the ReachOut extension or any API call. The terms carry no rollover clause, no expiry clause and no per-seat export ceiling; those sit in the private ordering document.

Advanced search filters and export depth

Apollo displays a maximum of 100 pages of search results, a documented ceiling in its search filters article. Building highly targeted lead lists past that depth means slicing the query, an extra step the interface doesn't warn you about.

Both platforms cover job title, company size, geography, technology stack and headcount growth. Basic filters look similar on both. The difference shows in what sits behind the paywall.

API access and rate limits

Apollo publishes its rate limits. Enrichment runs at 50 requests per minute on Free against 1,000 on every paid tier, with Free further capped at 200 per hour and 600 per day. Other endpoints run 200 per minute and 2,000 per day on Basic and Organization, 6,000 per day on Professional or custom.

Apollo's own pricing table shows API enrichment checked on all four tiers including Free, while the FAQ on the same page says API access comes with custom plans. Read the table, then confirm it in writing.

ZoomInfo positions its API under Data as a Service and the Enterprise API rather than inside any listed plan, and its pricing page notes that integrations "typically have a base cost to use and install and require a minimum purchase of bulk credits".

Apollo import caps scale with annual spend.

↑ COMPARISONLead generation workflows and targeted lead lists

Lead generation on Apollo starts in search & ends in a sequence without leaving the tab. A rep filters by job title, company size and technology stack, saves the result, and pushes it into an email outreach sequence. The whole outreach process runs on one screen.

ZoomInfo's lead generation efforts route outward. Lists get built in the platform, then exported to Salesforce, Outreach or Salesloft for the send, because export to those two sales engagement tools sits on Copilot Advanced instead of the base plan.

Highly targeted lead lists expose the ceiling on both sides. Apollo caps search display at 100 pages, so a query returning more has to be sliced by geography or headcount band. ZoomInfo's ceiling is commercial: every export spends a credit, so building targeted lead lists costs real money before anyone qualifies a single record.

High-quality leads are cheaper to reach on Apollo at list price and harder to segment by hierarchy. ZoomInfo vs Apollo on this axis comes down to how much qualification your sales team wants to finish before the export, and lead generation budgets follow that decision more than they follow the seat price.

Website visitor identification

Website visitor identification is a paid add-on on both platforms. ZoomInfo sells it as WebSights, listed under Copilot Advanced. Apollo sells it as Inbound at $149 per team per month, billed monthly.

Apollo publishes the caps: 50,000 company identifications a month, 10,000 US contact identifications a month, 100 domains, and 5,000 form contacts enriched a month. ZoomInfo publishes no equivalent website visitor volume figure anywhere public.

A website visitor match resolves to a company on most traffic and to a person on a fraction of it. Both vendors describe person-level website visitor matching in marketing copy without publishing a match rate, so read visitor identification volume as a company-level number until a rep gives you the other one in writing.

↑ COMPARISONIntent data and buying signals

Apollo includes buyer intent as a topic allowance: one topic on Free, six on Basic and Professional, twelve on Organization. Buyer intent signals arrive as account-level scores against those topics, and they're built into the same search interface the rep already uses.

ZoomInfo's Streaming Intent is an add-on priced, in its own words, "based on expected usage, specifically around the volume of keywords and account universe". Buying signals and website visitor identification sit on Copilot Advanced. Real-time and custom intent signals sit on Copilot Enterprise only.

So the intent data comparison turns on which tier you land on and what the size of the account universe does to the add-on quote. Apollo's intent data is included and shallow. ZoomInfo's intent data is deep and separately metered.

ZoomInfo's AI-assisted account prioritization runs through Copilot, which produces account briefings and recommended next sales actions. Apollo's equivalent is an AI research agent that drafts outreach copy, a narrower job.

Where each platform stops on large lead lists.

↑ COMPARISONSales engagement tools: how the sales process differs on Apollo vs ZoomInfo

Apollo ships email sequencing and a native dialer inside the same subscription. Mailbox limits run one per user on Free and Basic, unlimited Google and Microsoft mailboxes plus five SMTP per user on Professional, and fifteen SMTP per user on Organization. Daily sends cap at 250 until Professional lifts them.

Apollo's own guidance recommends starting at 50 emails per day per mailbox and staying inside 50 to 100 daily with 10 to 20 per hour, which is the practical limit on outreach campaigns regardless of what the plan allows.

Outreach automation is the dividing line. ZoomInfo routes sales automation to partners. Its site navigation sends sales automation to a Salesloft partnership page, and export to Outreach or Salesloft is a Copilot Advanced feature. There's no first-party sequencing product in the plan lists.

That's the structural difference in multi-channel prospecting between the two. Apollo replaces a sales engagement tool. ZoomInfo feeds one.

Conversation intelligence

ZoomInfo owns Chorus, a conversation intelligence product that records and analyses calls. Chorus appears on the pricing page as a separate product with its own link and shows up in no plan feature list, so it's bought alongside rather than inside.

Apollo has call recording with 4,000 minutes on Professional and 8,000 on Organization, and acquired Pocus in March 2026 for undisclosed terms to extend its signal layer.

Where outreach happens on each platform.

↑ COMPARISONCRM integrations and data enrichment

CRM integrations are where the two products stop resembling each other. ZoomInfo supports over 200 native integrations and connects directly to Salesforce and HubSpot, with APIs available for custom integrations. Its deep Salesforce work is the reason enterprise sales operations teams keep it after cheaper options land on the shortlist.

Apollo's CRM integrations centre on Salesforce, HubSpot and Pipedrive, with bidirectional sync and scheduled data enrichment. Enrichment costs one to eight credits per record depending on what gets appended.

Data enrichment pricing is the trap here. A scheduled data enrichment job against a 100,000-row CRM becomes its own budget line on Apollo, and marketing workflows that fire enrichment automatically will find the ceiling before anyone reviews the invoice.

Marketing automation platforms sit downstream of both. Neither replaces one.

Intent topic allowances against ZoomInfo's usage-priced intent add-on.

↑ COMPARISONContract terms, renewal and hidden costs: Apollo vs ZoomInfo

ZoomInfo's current licence terms carry a version date of 1 May 2025. Section 3.1 states plainly that the agreement "is not cancellable and shall remain in effect until it expires or is earlier terminated according to its terms". Contract length lives in the ordering document, which isn't public.

The 1 May 2025 version contains no automatic renewal clause. The 20 December 2021 version, still live at its own URL, does: the term auto-extended unless written notice arrived 60 days before the extension date, and the renewal fee was the annualised subscription fee plus 10%, plus any applied discount, multiplied by the term length in years.

A buyer holding a contract signed under the older terms is on a different deal from one signing today. Check the version date on the agreement in front of you.

Apollo auto-renews with a 30-day non-renewal notice requirement in section 4(c)(i). Section 4(c)(v) is titled "Non-cancelable; Non-refundable" and reads: "Subscriptions are non-cancelable during the Term and all payments by you are nonrefundable." Seat counts can't be reduced mid-term.

What it costs to leave

Apollo grants a perpetual, worldwide, transferable, royalty-free licence to the prospect data you exported during the term, and section 5(c) confirms you may retain it after the term ends. Section 3(e) bars reselling it or using it to build a competing database.

Downgrading to the free plan cuts you to one seat and removes the others ten days later. Self-serve cancellation only exists for select paid teams; everyone else files a support ticket.

ZoomInfo's section 3.3.2 makes all remaining subscription fees immediately due if ZoomInfo terminates for licensee breach, and section 4.2 charges 1.5% monthly interest on late payment. Section 5.2 classifies all business terms, "including, but not limited to, pricing and access", as ZoomInfo's confidential information, which is why the price comparison you're reading had to be built from procurement data.

Renewal mechanics under each licence.

↑ COMPARISONEase of use, onboarding and the learning curve

Apollo runs self-service from the first click. A new user signs up with a work email, lands on the free plan, and builds a list without speaking to anyone. Quick onboarding is the design goal, and G2 scores ease of use at 9.0 across the review base, a pattern the fuller Apollo.io review tracks across its whole feature set.

ZoomInfo has no self-serve checkout. Its trial form collects business email, full name and job title, then routes to a rep. ZoomInfo markets its onboarding programme as award-winning; the measurable version is a G2 ease-of-setup score of 8.9 from 2,267 responses, against Apollo's 8.9 from 3,884.

The interface on both products is dense. Reviewers describe a learning curve on each, and both platforms hide their better features two menus deep, so the first week on either one is spent finding things.

Where Apollo saves time is automation. Sequences, enrichment rules and the AI research agent take work off a rep's desk, and Apollo's data is validated on a rolling basis rather than at export, so a list built on Monday behaves the same on Friday.

Where ZoomInfo saves time is the export. A rep pulls a filtered list, pushes it to Salesforce, and the org chart, direct dials and technographics arrive attached. User satisfaction on both sits above 4.5 on G2 across more than 18,000 combined reviews.

Contract length shapes the onboarding either way. Apollo bills monthly or annually with a 30-day notice window; ZoomInfo's term sits in the ordering document, and one- to two-year commitments are the norm buyers report. Neither vendor lets you test at scale before that clock starts.

G2 ease-of-setup scores and the response counts behind them.

↑ COMPARISONCorporate risk: ZoomInfo vs Apollo ownership and financials

ZoomInfo changed its Nasdaq ticker from ZI to GTM on 13 May 2025. FY2025 revenue reached $1,249.5 million against $1,214.3 million in FY2024, growth of 3%.

Q2 2026, reported 5 August 2026, showed revenue of $310.4 million, up 1.2% year on year, against a GAAP operating loss of $622.0 million that included a $650.5 million goodwill impairment. Net revenue retention was 89%, down from 90% at the end of 2025.

On 5 May 2026 the board approved a restructuring cutting about 600 employees, roughly 20% of Q1 2026 headcount, closing the Israel site and taking $45 to $60 million in charges. The stock fell 28% to $4.32 after hours, an all-time low, as reported by Mike Rogoway in The Oregonian on 11 May 2026.

ZoomInfo also settled right-of-publicity claims across four states for $29,557,612.50, recognising a $30.1 million charge in FY2024 and agreeing not to use class members' identities in advertising for three years. Actions filed in Washington, Quebec and Colorado were still pending at the FY2025 filing.

Apollo's corporate history is shorter and quieter. It raised $100 million in a Series D on 29 August 2023 led by Bain Capital Ventures at a $1.6 billion valuation, and named Matt Curl chief executive on 3 February 2026 with co-founder Tim Zheng moving to chairman. Apollo settled an Illinois right-of-publicity class action for $870,660 on 1 October 2024, and a 2018 incident exposed 125.9 million email addresses through an unsecured database.

ZoomInfo financial timeline, May 2025 to August 2026.

↑ COMPARISONReview scores from actual users: ZoomInfo vs Apollo

Apollo holds 4.7 out of 5 from 9,702 G2 reviews, with ease of setup at 8.9 from 3,884 responses and quality of support at 8.8 from 6,480. On Capterra it reads 4.5 from 398 reviews, ease of use 4.5 and customer service 4.2.

ZoomInfo's main G2 listing, now titled GTM Workspace, holds 4.5 from 9,105 reviews, ease of setup 8.9 from 2,267 responses and quality of support 8.7 from 6,638. Gartner Peer Insights gives it 4.2 from 439 ratings. Capterra reads 4.1 from 321 reviews with customer service at 3.8.

The sample sizes are close enough that the 0.2-point gap is real. The support sub-scores sit 0.1 apart on nearly 13,000 combined responses, so support explains none of that gap.

What low-star reviewers report

Across a fifty-review sample of Apollo's one and two-star G2 entries, three themes recur. Support responsiveness leads at 23 distinct reviews, including 12-hour chat waits and a billing question routed through five departments over two weeks. Data accuracy and bounced emails follow at 12, with one reviewer reporting wrong emails on over half of about 1,000 records.

Billing disputes sit third at 8 reviews, mostly cards charged without a confirmation step. Wrong or dead mobile numbers appear in 6, refused refunds in 5, and credits burned on bad data in 5.

Those complaints cluster around the credit model. A product that charges eight credits for a phone number and refunds nothing when it's wrong will produce this pattern at scale.

G2 ratings with the review counts behind them.

↑ COMPARISONWhich sales intelligence platform fits which sales team

Sales intelligence buying splits on team size more than on data accuracy. A ten-person sales team with no dedicated revenue operations headcount runs a different sales process from a 200-person sales team carrying territory rules, and the sales intelligence tool that fits one breaks in the other.

ZoomInfo primarily focuses on being an intelligence platform for large sales and marketing teams that already run defined territory, hierarchy and routing logic. Apollo focuses on getting a small team from search to sent email inside one subscription.

Choose Apollo when the whole sales process runs in one place

A team under 25 reps doing outbound prospecting with no separate sequencing tool gets more workflow efficiency from Apollo, because the sales workflow, the contact database and outreach automation share one login and one bill. Transparent pricing also means procurement can approve it without a discovery call.

Skip Apollo if your buying committee sits inside a conglomerate structure, or if compliance requires SSO on every seat and the three-seat Organization floor plus $119 per seat breaks the budget.

Choose ZoomInfo when hierarchy and intent depth decide the deal

Mid-market companies and enterprises with dedicated sales operations, an existing Salesloft or Outreach deployment, and real budget for intent get more out of ZoomInfo's data points, org mapping and predictive analytics. The 200-plus native integrations matter when the CRM is already heavily customised, and custom pricing means the quote arrives after the demo instead of before it.

Skip ZoomInfo if nobody on the team can negotiate an annual contract, or if the finance director needs a price before a demo. The confidentiality clause on pricing makes that structurally impossible.

↑ COMPARISONApollo vs ZoomInfo: frequently asked questions

Apollo.io vs ZoomInfo: is Apollo as good?

On published data accuracy claims and G2 rating, Apollo scores higher. On corporate hierarchy, direct dial volume and intent data depth, ZoomInfo publishes larger numbers. The Apollo.io vs ZoomInfo answer depends on which of those two jobs your pipeline needs.

Who is ZoomInfo's biggest competitor?

By search demand for head-to-head queries, Apollo. By enterprise deal overlap, Demandbase, 6sense and Cognism appear most often on the same shortlists, each against a different part of the ZoomInfo product line. The two pairs already priced out here are UpLead vs ZoomInfo and LinkedIn Sales Navigator vs ZoomInfo.

Is ZoomInfo outdated?

Its financials show slowing growth and 89% net revenue retention in Q2 2026, meaning existing customers spent less than the year before. The intelligence platform still ships, with the GTM Context Graph and Copilot both current. Contraction in spend is the risk to price into a multi-year deal.

Does ZoomInfo have a free plan?

No. ZoomInfo offers a 7-day free trial with no published credit allowance. Apollo's free plan is permanent at 900 credits per seat per year.

ZoomInfo vs Apollo: which is cheaper for a ten-seat sales team?

Ten Apollo Professional seats cost $9,480 per year at list. The median tracked ZoomInfo contract is $33,500 across roughly 1,000 to 1,600 purchases. The ZoomInfo vs Apollo gap narrows only if the ZoomInfo deal lands near the $7,200 low.

Which has better mobile phone numbers?

ZoomInfo claims 135 million verified phone numbers. Apollo charges eight credits per phone number and refunds none of them when the number fails, so the cost of bad mobile phone numbers falls on the buyer on Apollo and into the contract on ZoomInfo.

Can I use Apollo and ZoomInfo together?

Yes, and waterfall enrichment is the common pattern: query the cheaper source first, fall through to the expensive one on a miss. Apollo's perpetual licence on exported data makes it workable as the first stage. ZoomInfo's per-export credit definition means every fallthrough costs money.

What does ZoomInfo's custom pricing cost?

The only defensible answer is the tracked median: $33,500 per year, low $7,200, high $155,280, average negotiated saving 21.81%, from Vendr's February 2026 data. The $14,995 and $85,781 figures circulating in search results have no primary source.

Which one do marketing teams pick?

Marketing teams running account based marketing usually land on ZoomInfo's ABM tiers or leave both for a dedicated ABM platform. Apollo's marketing surface is outreach campaigns and forms, and it stops there.

↑ COMPARISONZoomInfo vs Apollo: the verdict

Apollo wins on cost certainty, and cost certainty is most of what a growing sales team is buying. $9,480 buys ten Professional seats, 480,000 credits, native sequencing, a dialer and CRM enrichment, with a 30-day notice window and a perpetual licence on everything already exported.

ZoomInfo wins on hierarchy, direct dials and intent data depth, and charges roughly 3.5 times the median for them. Its contract makes those terms confidential, its 2026 restructuring cut 20% of staff, and its net revenue retention says existing customers are spending less. Price the second year before signing the first.

Apollo vs ZoomInfo is a sales intelligence decision with a procurement answer. Buy Apollo if the whole sales process fits in one platform and the sales workflow ends in a sent email. Buy ZoomInfo if the org chart is the product you need. Either way, put the notice date in a calendar the day you sign.

Ten-seat annual cost, Apollo list price against ZoomInfo's median tracked contract.

Prices and scores verified 8 August 2026 against apollo.io/pricing, apollo.io/terms, zoominfo.com/pricing, zoominfo.com/legal/ltc, vendr.com/marketplace/zoominfo, SEC filings and G2.