Both give you contact data. Apollo does a lot more than that.
Lusha and Apollo both give you direct dial phone numbers and business email addresses for B2B contacts. The similarity ends there. Lusha is a focused contact data tool: clean Chrome extension, accurate mobile numbers, strong European coverage, and a simple credit-based pricing model. Apollo is a full sales platform: 275 million contacts, built-in email sequences, enrichment APIs, LinkedIn extension, CRM integration, and analytics. For someone who just needs accurate contact data with minimal setup, Lusha is faster and cleaner. For someone who wants to find contacts, enrich their CRM, run sequences, and track pipeline in one product, Apollo is the more complete tool. The choice depends on what you are already using.
Data quality and EU coverage
Lusha has built a reputation for higher mobile phone number accuracy, particularly for European contacts where GDPR compliance and data sourcing are more complex. Lusha claims verified contact data from 45 million business profiles with an emphasis on accuracy over volume. Apollo's database is larger at 275 million contacts but coverage quality varies more by region. EU contact data is notably stronger in Lusha. Apollo's US coverage is comprehensive, and their EU data has improved recently, but teams doing significant European outreach typically see higher connect rates with Lusha numbers. For North American-only outbound, the accuracy difference is less pronounced.
Scope: data tool vs. full sales platform
Lusha is a contact data tool. It finds phone numbers and emails, integrates with Salesforce and HubSpot to sync contacts, and stops there. It does not write emails, run sequences, or track deal stages. Apollo is a full outbound platform: contact data plus built-in multi-step email sequences, LinkedIn touchpoints, A/B testing, email open and reply tracking, CRM sync, and analytics. For teams already using Outreach or Salesloft for sequences, Apollo's sequencing is redundant. For teams without a sequencer, Apollo can replace one. This is the single biggest factor in the decision: how many tools do you want to manage.
Pricing model and value at scale
Lusha uses a credit-based model where each contact lookup costs one credit. Free plan includes 5 credits per month. Paid plans start around $36-$49/month per user for 480 credits per year. Apollo offers a more generous free plan (unlimited email lookups, 5 phone credits per month) and paid plans from $49/month per user for 12,000 phone credits per year. For small teams doing occasional lookups, Lusha's free or entry plan is sufficient. At scale, Apollo typically delivers more contact volume for equivalent cost, since the platform fee covers sequences and enrichment in addition to data. Many teams end up paying for both: Apollo for US prospecting and enrichment, Lusha specifically for EU contacts and mobile numbers.
| Lusha | Apollo | |
|---|---|---|
| Database size | 45M+ business profiles, 50M+ direct dials (EU-strong) | 275M+ contacts, 65M+ direct dials (US-strong) |
| EU data quality | Strong. GDPR-compliant sourcing, better European mobile coverage | Improving but historically weaker than Lusha for EU mobile numbers |
| Free plan | 5 credits/month, LinkedIn extension included | Unlimited email lookups, 5 phone credits/month, basic sequences included |
| Paid pricing | From ~$36-$49/user/month (480 annual credits); enterprise custom | From $49/user/month (12,000 phone credits/year) to $119/user/month |
| Built-in sequences | No. Contact data only — integrates with your sequencer | Yes. Multi-step email and LinkedIn sequences included on paid plans |
| Chrome extension | Yes. LinkedIn and web extension for point-and-click contact lookup | Yes. LinkedIn, Gmail, and general web extension |
| CRM integration | Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Microsoft Dynamics | Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, and 50+ via Zapier |
| Best for | EU-heavy outreach, high mobile connect rate needs, data-only use case | All-in-one prospecting: contact data, sequences, and enrichment without separate tools |
Want this built for your team?
We implement these systems end-to-end. First campaigns live in 14 days.
The verdict
Lusha wins on EU data quality and mobile phone accuracy. If your team is doing European outreach, running a calling campaign where connect rate matters, or needs GDPR-compliant sourcing, Lusha's data reliability justifies the higher per-contact cost. Apollo wins on scope. If you want contact data plus sequences plus enrichment plus analytics without stitching together three separate tools, Apollo's platform delivers comparable data quality for US markets at a lower total cost. The teams that get the most from Lusha are already using Outreach or Salesloft for sequences and just need better data to feed it. The teams that get the most from Apollo are building their outbound stack from scratch or replacing a sequencer. Many teams run both in parallel: Apollo for US volume, Lusha for EU mobile numbers specifically.
Is Lusha or Apollo more accurate for direct dial phone numbers?
For European and UK markets, Lusha consistently outperforms Apollo on mobile number accuracy. For the US market, accuracy is more comparable, with Apollo's higher volume sometimes compensating for slightly lower per-record accuracy. Teams running calling campaigns into European markets report materially higher connect rates with Lusha numbers. For North America-only outbound, the difference is smaller and Apollo's larger database may surface more net-new contacts not in Lusha's index.
Can Apollo replace Lusha entirely?
For most US-focused teams, yes. Apollo's free plan alone gives more contacts than Lusha's paid entry tier for US records. Where Apollo falls short of Lusha: EU data quality, mobile number accuracy in international markets, and enrichment completeness for certain enterprise accounts where Lusha has more complete records. Teams running significant European outbound typically keep Lusha specifically for EU phone numbers even if Apollo handles everything else.
Does Lusha work well with Salesforce and HubSpot?
Yes. Lusha has native integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, and Microsoft Dynamics. The integration lets you push contact records directly from Lusha's Chrome extension to your CRM, sync enrichment data to existing records, and track credit usage by team member. The CRM sync works well for basic use cases. For advanced enrichment workflows at scale (bulk uploads, automatic CRM refresh, enrichment APIs), Apollo or Clay are better suited because they have more complete pipeline enrichment features.
Is Apollo's built-in sequencer good enough to replace Outreach or Salesloft?
For teams under 20 reps doing outbound-heavy motions, Apollo's sequences cover 80-90% of what Outreach and Salesloft offer. You get multi-step email sequences, A/B testing, reply detection, and LinkedIn touchpoints. Where Apollo falls short: deeper revenue intelligence, AI-generated coaching, advanced pipeline analytics, and the enterprise-grade reporting that RevOps teams need at 50+ rep scale. If you are spending $300-500/month per rep on Outreach and your team is under 20 people, Apollo's sequences are worth evaluating as a replacement.
How does Apollo pricing work for larger teams?
Apollo's pricing is per user per year. At the Basic tier ($49/user/month), each user gets 12,000 phone credits per year — roughly 1,000 contacts per month. Professional tier ($79/user/month) includes 24,000 credits per year plus advanced sequencing and AI features. For large teams (20 or more users), Apollo offers custom enterprise pricing that typically reduces per-user cost. The total cost for a 10-person sales team runs roughly $5,900-$9,500 per year depending on tier, which is comparable to or lower than Lusha for equivalent contact volume once you factor in a separate sequencer.
No pitch deck. No 45-minute demo. A conversation about where your pipeline is stuck.