Apollo vs Lusha (2026): Which B2B Database Is Better?

Affiliate disclosure: some links in this article are partner links. If you start a paid plan through them, imisofts may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. We only recommend tools we actually use to run client campaigns.

Quick Answer: Apollo wins on cost per contact (about 2 cents an email on a $49 Basic seat billed annually, against 8.7 to 9.4 cents on Lusha's yearly plans) and, in our tests, on email accuracy (82%). Lusha has the cheaper entry plan ($37.45 a month billed yearly), claims the bigger database (290M+ contacts against Apollo's 240M+), and in our tests won on phone accuracy (85% vs 78%). Choose Apollo for email-heavy prospecting; choose Lusha if phone outreach is primary or you mainly target Europe. For most email-first teams, Apollo's roughly 3x to 5x lower cost per contact makes it the better default.

Corrected on 29 September 2026: we re-checked every price, plan limit and database count on this page against Apollo's and Lusha's own pricing and home pages. Earlier versions described plans that are not on either pricing page (Apollo "Standard" at $149 a month with 1,000 contacts and "Advanced" at $299, Lusha "Professional" at $400 with 1,500 and "Growth" at $500), put Lusha's database at 80M+ records when Lusha states 290M+ contacts, and put Apollo's at 275M+ when Apollo states 240M+; the database errors flattered Apollo. We also fixed a blended-accuracy sum that had the wrong winner. Apollo is still cheaper per contact; Lusha has the cheaper entry plan. The accuracy, coverage and campaign results below come from the original article and were not re-tested; we re-priced the tool costs inside them at today's list prices.

Quick Summary Table

The Price Gap: Apollo Wins Per Contact

Monthly cost comparison:

Per contact on yearly list prices, Apollo is about 4.5x to 4.8x cheaper for an email and about 3x cheaper for a phone number. On entry price Lusha is cheaper: Starter is $37.45 a month billed yearly, and Pro includes two seats for $52.45, about $26 a seat against Apollo's $49. Lusha's monthly Pro and Premium credits also roll over up to 2x, where Apollo's credits expire at the end of each billing cycle.

For one user pulling a 3,000-person prospect list every month (3,000 emails a month, 36,000 a year):

Apollo:

• Professional, billed annually: $79 a month for 48,000 credits a year, so one seat covers it
• Month to month: Professional at $99 for 4,000 credits a month
• An email costs 1 credit
• Cost per lead: about 2.6 cents (annual) or 3.3 cents (monthly)

Lusha:

• Premium, billed yearly: $299.95 a month for 40,800 credits a year, the smallest Lusha plan that includes 36,000
• Month to month: Premium at $399.90 for 3,400 credits a month
• An email costs 1 credit, a phone number 5
• Cost per lead: about 10 cents (yearly) or 13.3 cents (monthly)

For one user, Apollo costs about 74% less per lead (2.6 vs 10 cents on yearly billing). For a five-person team the gap narrows, because Lusha Premium includes five seats: five Apollo Basic seats cost $2,940 a year, about 8.2 cents a lead at the same volume, 18% below Lusha.

Scale to 10,000 leads/month (120,000 a year):

Apollo:

• Four Basic seats, billed annually: $196 a month for 120,000 credits a year (credits are granted per seat, so this assumes four users each pulling about 2,500 a month)
• Cost per lead: about 2 cents

Lusha:

• Premium's 40,800 credits a year plus add-on credits, which Lusha lets you buy at any time without printing the rate on its pricing page, or its custom Scale plan (it advertises 50%+ off the price per credit)
• Cost per lead: not published

At this volume only Apollo prints the whole price.

For the European CFO firm (10K leads/month across 6 countries):

Apollo total cost: about $196/month at list (four users on Basic seats, billed annually)

Lusha total cost: Premium plus add-on credits, or a Scale quote

Annual difference: not computable from list prices

Get Lusha's Scale quote before you compare; its advertised 50%+ discount per credit could narrow the gap. Prices read on 29 September 2026 on apollo.io/pricing and lusha.com/pricing.

Accuracy Test: Apollo 82% vs Lusha 79% on Emails

We tested both tools on 1,000 B2B records across 5 industries: SaaS, insurance, healthcare, financial services, and manufacturing.

Industry-by-Industry Breakdown

SaaS (250 records):

• Apollo email accuracy: 85% (212/250)
• Lusha email accuracy: 80% (200/250)
• Apollo wins: 5 points

Insurance (200 records):

• Apollo email accuracy: 78% (156/200)
• Lusha email accuracy: 76% (152/200)
• Apollo wins: 2 points

Healthcare (200 records):

• Apollo email accuracy: 81% (162/200)
• Lusha email accuracy: 82% (164/200)
• Lusha wins: 1 point

Financial Services (200 records):

• Apollo email accuracy: 84% (168/200)
• Lusha email accuracy: 78% (156/200)
• Apollo wins: 6 points

Manufacturing (150 records):

• Apollo email accuracy: 76% (114/150)
• Lusha email accuracy: 76% (114/150)
• Tie: 0 points

Overall:

• Apollo: 81.2% average
• Lusha: 78.4% average
• Apollo wins: 2.8 points

Apollo wins on email across 3/5 industries. The gap is small (2.8 points) but consistent.

Phone Number Accuracy

This is where Lusha shines.

Test methodology: Called 100 phone numbers from each tool to verify accuracy.

Apollo phone accuracy: 78% (78 calls reached correct person out of 100)

Lusha phone accuracy: 85% (85 calls reached correct person out of 100)

Lusha wins by 7 points on phone. For phone-centric teams, this matters.

Coverage Comparison

Apollo coverage (of 1,000 records):

• Valid email found: 847 (84.7%)
• Valid phone found: 721 (72.1%)
• Both email + phone: 521 (52.1%)

Lusha coverage (of 1,000 records):

• Valid email found: 710 (71%)
• Valid phone found: 680 (68%)
• Both email + phone: 480 (48%)

Apollo finds more emails (13.7 points better) but Lusha finds comparable phones (4.1 points worse).

Apollo's advantage: email coverage. Lusha's advantage: phone quality.

Real Campaign Test: SaaS Outreach

We tested both tools with a SaaS product (running 500K/year ARR, targeting SMB buyers).

Apollo approach:

• Tool cost: $65/month (one Basic seat on monthly billing, 2,500 credits)
• Database: 1,000 leads pulled
• Valid emails: 847 (84.7%)
• Campaign volume: 847 emails
• Open rate: 3.1%
• Reply rate: 2.4%
• Replies: 20
• Cost per reply: $3.25

Lusha approach:

• Tool cost: $399.90/month (Premium, the smallest monthly plan that includes 1,000+ credits; Lusha also sells add-on credits but does not print their price)
• Database: 1,000 leads pulled
• Valid emails: 710 (71%)
• Campaign volume: 710 emails
• Open rate: 2.9%
• Reply rate: 2.3%
• Replies: 16
• Cost per reply: $25

Apollo delivered 25% more replies (20 vs 16) at 87% lower cost per reply ($3.25 vs $25), with both tools on monthly list plan prices.

Why? Apollo's better email coverage (85% vs 71%) meant more emails sent. More emails = more replies, even at slightly lower open rate.

European Coverage: Lusha's Strength

Lusha has particularly strong European coverage. For the European CFO firm test:

Apollo coverage (6 countries):

• UK: 85% email accuracy
• Germany: 78% email accuracy
• France: 71% email accuracy
• Netherlands: 82% email accuracy
• Spain: 75% email accuracy
• Italy: 68% email accuracy
• Average: 76.5%

Lusha coverage (6 countries):

• UK: 86% email accuracy
• Germany: 84% email accuracy
• France: 82% email accuracy
• Netherlands: 85% email accuracy
• Spain: 81% email accuracy
• Italy: 78% email accuracy
• Average: 82.7%

Lusha's European coverage is 6.2 points better. For European-focused teams, Lusha's European optimization matters.

But pricing: Apollo still wins per contact, at about 2 cents an email against about 9 cents on Lusha's yearly plans (US dollar list prices; we did not check euro pricing), even with Lusha's coverage advantage.

Browser Extension & Workflow

Apollo browser extension:

• Pulls data while browsing LinkedIn
• Real-time enrichment
• Quality: Good, but sometimes slow

Lusha browser extension:

• Faster enrichment (100ms vs 200ms Apollo)
• LinkedIn data import more seamless
• Quality: Slightly better than Apollo

For teams that live in LinkedIn (recruiters, B2B sales), Lusha's extension is marginally superior. Not a huge difference.

Mobile & Direct Phone

Lusha includes direct phone numbers more often. Apollo prioritizes business phone.

For B2B sales (want company phone):

• Apollo: Better (gives company phone more reliably)

For recruitment (want mobile/personal):

• Lusha: Better (more mobile numbers available)

Data Freshness & Updates

Both tools update data regularly. Neither has a significant advantage.

Apollo: 2M+ users help keep the data fresh every day (Apollo's description)

Lusha: 26 buying signals refreshed weekly (Lusha's description)

Neither publishes a comparable refresh rate for contact records.

Integration & API

Apollo:

• API: Public, well-documented
• Rate limits: Good (reasonable for most use cases)
• CRM integrations: Native Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive
• Slack integration: Yes

Lusha:

• API: Public but less documented
• Rate limits: Lower than Apollo
• CRM integrations: Native Salesforce, HubSpot
• Slack integration: No

Apollo's API is superior. If you're building custom workflows, Apollo wins.

When to Use Each

Use Apollo if:

• Email is primary channel
• Cost per contact matters more than entry price
• You need high volume per seat (30,000 credits a year on Basic)
• You're in US/global markets
• You want lowest cost-per-reply
• You use CRM heavily (better integrations)

Use Lusha if:

• Phone outreach is significant
• You're targeting Europe
• Phone accuracy matters more than email coverage
• You value faster browser extension
• You accept roughly 3x to 5x more per contact
• You want the cheaper entry plan, or two seats for $52.45 a month

Use both if:

• ARR > $10M
• You do both email and phone
• You have European + US markets
• You want best-in-class for each channel

Real Scenario: Recruitment Firm (Phone-Primary)

A Dutch recruitment firm does 70% phone, 30% email outreach.

Apollo approach:

• Email accuracy: 82%
• Phone accuracy: 78%
• Blended: 79% effective accuracy (70% phone at 78%, 30% email at 82%)
• Cost: about $147/month at list, assuming three users on Basic seats billed annually, which cover the 5,900 credits a month that 700 phone numbers and 300 emails use (one user would need add-on credits, whose price Apollo does not print)
• Monthly leads: 1,000

Lusha approach:

• Email accuracy: 79%
• Phone accuracy: 85%
• Blended: 83% effective accuracy (70% phone at 85%, 30% email at 79%)
• Cost: Premium plus add-on credits, or a Scale quote (700 phone numbers and 300 emails use 3,800 Lusha credits a month, more than Premium's 3,400)
• Monthly leads: 1,000

For a phone-primary team, Lusha's 85% phone accuracy is valuable, and on this mix Lusha's blended accuracy is 4 points higher. But is it worth Lusha's price for that volume?

The firm tested both. Result: Apollo + better research (30 min/1,000 leads) outperformed Lusha's native accuracy. The extra research time was cheaper than Lusha's price for that volume.

Lesson: Better process beats better data at this scale.

Our Recommendation: Apollo for Most, Lusha for Europe + Phone

Default choice: Apollo. It's roughly 3x to 5x cheaper per contact and delivers solid accuracy. Start here.

Upgrade to Lusha if:

• Phone is more than 30% of your outreach (the point where Lusha's blended accuracy passes Apollo's in our tests)
• You're targeting European markets
• Cost per contact is not the constraint
• Phone accuracy gap directly impacts revenue

Use both if:

• You can afford both (Apollo from $49 a seat a month and Lusha from $37.45 a month, both billed yearly)
• You do coordinated phone + email
• You're serving both US and Europe

For most SaaS teams and startups: Apollo wins decisively on ROI. Agencies should check one condition first: Apollo's pricing page says the plans shown are "permitted for internal business use only", and that using them to power external products, share data with customers or resell Apollo data "is not allowed under our standard terms" and needs a separate agreement. SaaS teams that would pipe Apollo data into their own product fall under the same line.

Ready to test Apollo? Start Apollo free trial. Need European phone numbers? Lusha might be better. Both have free plans (Apollo 75 credits a month, Lusha 40), so test both on your own list.