.svg)
If you've spent any time building outbound workflows in Clay, you know how quickly a clean table turns into an engineering project. You start with a lead list, add an email finder, stack a company enrichment column on top, wire in a phone number lookup, and before long you're staring at a 20-column table where half the enrichments return blanks and the other half are eating your budget on duplicated data.
Clay enrichment workflows are the backbone of modern outbound operations. They let GTM Engineers automate the lead research that used to take SDRs hours per account. But building them well—with waterfall logic, cost controls, and reliable data coverage—requires more than dragging enrichment columns into a table. It requires architecture.
This guide covers how to design Clay enrichment workflows that actually scale: waterfall strategies that maximize data coverage, cost optimization techniques that keep your Clay credits under control, and the patterns that separate a fragile enrichment chain from a production-grade system. Whether you're building your first enrichment table or refactoring one that's become unwieldy, you'll find practical techniques you can implement today.
What Clay Enrichment Workflows Actually Do
At the most basic level, a Clay enrichment workflow takes a sparse lead record—maybe just a name, company, and LinkedIn URL—and transforms it into a rich, actionable profile. The workflow chains together multiple data providers, formulas, and AI steps to fill in firmographics, contact details, technographics, intent signals, and anything else your downstream tools need.
What makes Clay uniquely powerful for this is its spreadsheet-meets-API interface. Each column can call a different enrichment provider, run a formula, or trigger an AI model. Columns execute in sequence, so downstream steps can consume upstream outputs. You're essentially building a data pipeline in a spreadsheet.
A typical Clay enrichment workflow includes some combination of these stages:
- Identity resolution: Matching a name or domain to a canonical record across providers
- Contact enrichment: Finding emails, phone numbers, and social profiles
- Company enrichment: Pulling firmographics like employee count, revenue, industry, and tech stack
- Signal enrichment: Identifying hiring activity, funding events, website visits, or job changes
- Qualification and scoring: Evaluating fit against your ICP based on the enriched data
- Content generation: Producing personalized messaging using the enriched context
The challenge is that no single data provider covers all of these well. That's where waterfall enrichment comes in.
Waterfall Enrichment Strategies in Clay
Waterfall enrichment is the practice of chaining multiple data providers for the same field, falling through to the next provider only when the previous one returns empty. It's the single most impactful pattern for improving data coverage in Clay.
Why Waterfall Matters
No enrichment provider has complete coverage. Apollo might have strong email data for tech startups but gaps in manufacturing. ZoomInfo covers enterprise well but misses smaller companies. Clearbit excels at technographics but may lack direct dials. When you rely on a single provider, your enrichment hit rate typically lands between 40-70%, which means a third to half of your list ships downstream with missing data.
A well-designed waterfall can push coverage above 85-90% for key fields by trying providers in sequence until a value is found.
How to Structure a Waterfall in Clay
Identify your critical fields
Decide which data points your downstream workflow requires. Email is almost always critical. Direct phone, employee count, tech stack, and industry are common. Don't waterfall everything—focus on the fields that actually gate your next step.
Rank providers by coverage and cost
For each field, determine which providers have the best hit rate for your target segment, then order them by cost per successful lookup. Your cheapest high-coverage provider should go first.
Set conditional execution
In Clay, configure each provider column to run only when the previous provider returned empty. Use Clay's conditional logic: "Only run if [previous email column] is blank." This ensures you only spend credits on fallback lookups when needed.
Merge into a canonical column
Create a final column that consolidates the results. Use a formula like COALESCE(provider1_email, provider2_email, provider3_email) to produce a single clean value for downstream use.
Example: Email Waterfall
| Step | Provider | Condition | Typical Hit Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Apollo (People Enrichment) | Always run | 55-65% |
| 2 | Hunter.io | Run if Step 1 is blank | 30-40% of remainder |
| 3 | Dropcontact | Run if Steps 1-2 are blank | 20-30% of remainder |
| 4 | Prospeo / FindyMail | Run if Steps 1-3 are blank | 15-25% of remainder |
| Combined coverage | 85-92% | ||
The "best" provider order depends on your ICP. If you're targeting enterprise accounts, ZoomInfo or Cognism might be your best first step. For startups and SMBs, Apollo or Clearbit often have better coverage. Test your waterfall on a sample of 100 leads from your actual target segment before committing to a provider order at scale. For a full comparison of enrichment tools, see our guide on the best platforms for outbound data enrichment in 2026.
Common Waterfall Configurations
| Data Type | Recommended Waterfall (General) | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Work email | Apollo → Hunter → Dropcontact → FindyMail | Verify with NeverBounce or ZeroBounce at the end |
| Direct phone | Apollo → Cognism → Lusha → RocketReach | Phone data is sparser; expect 40-60% total coverage |
| Company firmographics | Clearbit → Apollo → PeopleDataLabs | Often one provider is sufficient for company data |
| Tech stack | BuiltWith → Wappalyzer → Clearbit | BuiltWith has deepest tech coverage |
Cost Optimization for Clay Enrichment
Clay credits go fast when you're running multi-provider waterfalls across large lists. The difference between a well-optimized workflow and a naive one can be 3-5x in credit consumption for the same output quality. Here's how to keep costs under control.
1. Gate expensive enrichments with cheap filters
Don't run a 5-step waterfall on your entire list. First, filter down to leads that are actually worth enriching. Use low-cost or free signals—domain validation, basic company lookups, LinkedIn existence checks—to remove obvious non-fits before running expensive contact enrichments.
2. Qualify before you enrich deeply
This is the most underutilized optimization in Clay workflows. Run a qualification step early—using firmographic data or a lightweight company enrichment—and only run deep enrichment on leads that pass your threshold. If 40% of your list doesn't fit your ICP, you've just cut your enrichment costs by 40%.
Platforms like Octave make this particularly efficient. Instead of building complex scoring formulas in Clay, you can run a Qualify agent against your leads and use the returned score as a gate for downstream enrichment. Leads that score below your threshold skip the expensive steps entirely.
3. Use conditional execution religiously
Every enrichment column in Clay should have a condition. The waterfall pattern naturally does this (only run if the previous step returned blank), but extend it further:
- Skip phone enrichment if the lead's persona doesn't warrant cold calling
- Skip tech stack lookups if you're not running a competitive play
- Skip deep enrichment for leads that already exist in your CRM with recent data
4. Batch strategically
Run enrichment in batches of 50-100 leads rather than your full list at once. This lets you validate data quality early and catch issues before burning credits on thousands of rows. It also helps you benchmark your waterfall hit rates and adjust provider ordering before scaling.
5. Cache and deduplicate
If you're running the same domains through multiple tables or workflows, you're paying for the same enrichment twice. Use Clay's built-in deduplication or maintain a master enrichment table that other tables reference. Company-level data in particular should only be enriched once per domain.
For a typical outbound workflow with email waterfall, company enrichment, and qualification, expect to spend roughly 8-15 Clay credits per lead that reaches the sequence stage. Your actual cost depends on list quality, waterfall depth, and how aggressively you filter. Track your cost-per-qualified-lead as a key metric and optimize against it.
Designing Production-Grade Enrichment Workflows
The difference between a prototype Clay table and a production system comes down to architecture. Here are the patterns that make enrichment workflows maintainable and scalable.
The Three-Stage Pattern
Most production Clay enrichment workflows follow a three-stage pattern. For a deeper look at how to coordinate these stages across your full stack, see our post on coordinating Clay, CRM, and sequencer in one flow.
Stage 1: Ingest and validate
Clean and validate incoming lead data. Normalize domains, verify email formats, remove duplicates, and confirm basic identity. This stage catches garbage data before it wastes enrichment credits downstream.
Stage 2: Enrich and qualify
Run your waterfall enrichments, score leads against your ICP, and tag them with segment or persona labels. This is where most of your credit spend happens, so conditional logic matters most here.
Stage 3: Activate
Generate personalized content, push to your sequencer, create CRM records, or route to the appropriate sales rep. Only leads that passed qualification in Stage 2 should reach this stage.
Separating Company and Person Enrichment
A common mistake is enriching company data on every person row. If you have 10 contacts at the same company, you're running the same company enrichment 10 times.
Instead, use separate tables:
- Company table: One row per domain. Runs company enrichment, firmographics, tech stack, and company-level qualification once.
- Person table: One row per contact. References company data via domain lookup. Runs person-level enrichment (email, phone, LinkedIn, role-level qualification).
This pattern can reduce company-level enrichment costs by 60-80% for lists with multiple contacts per account.
Building for Reusability
The best Clay workflows are modular. Instead of building one monolithic table that does everything, build focused tables that each do one thing well:
- A company enrichment template that any workflow can reference
- A contact finder template that takes a domain and persona criteria and returns contacts
- A qualification template that scores any lead against your ICP
- An activation template that takes enriched, qualified leads and generates sequences
This approach lets you update enrichment logic in one place and have all downstream workflows benefit. It's the same principle behind building a research-to-qualification-to-sequence pipeline—each stage is independent but composable.
Common Clay Enrichment Workflow Patterns
Here are the five patterns we see most often in production Clay deployments.
1. Inbound Lead Enrichment
Triggered by form fills or demo requests. Enriches the lead, qualifies against your ICP, routes to the right rep, and generates a personalized follow-up draft. Speed matters here—keep the waterfall shallow (2 providers max) and prioritize latency over coverage.
2. Account-Based Prospecting
Starts with a target account list. Enriches company data, then uses contact-finding providers to identify relevant personas at each account. Contacts flow into a person enrichment waterfall before being qualified and sequenced. This is where the company/person table separation pattern pays off most.
3. CRM Hygiene and Re-Enrichment
Pulls existing records from your CRM, identifies stale or missing data, re-enriches with current providers, and pushes updates back. Run this on a schedule (monthly or quarterly) to keep your CRM from decaying. Condition enrichment on data age to avoid re-enriching records that were updated recently.
4. Signal-Triggered Enrichment
Monitors intent signals—job changes, funding rounds, hiring spikes, technology adoption—and triggers enrichment only when a signal fires. This pattern produces highly timely leads but requires a signal source (Bombora, G2, LinkedIn Sales Navigator, or similar) feeding into Clay.
5. Competitive Displacement
Identifies companies using a competitor's product (via technographic data), enriches decision-maker contacts, and generates messaging that highlights your differentiation. This is one of the highest-converting outbound motions and benefits significantly from structured competitive context. If you're using a context engine like Octave alongside Clay, competitive playbooks can automatically shape the messaging for these leads.
Managing Enrichment Data Quality
Enrichment data is only useful if it's accurate. Here's how to keep quality high as you scale.
Verification Layers
Always add a verification step after your email waterfall. Services like NeverBounce, ZeroBounce, or MillionVerifier catch invalid addresses before they hit your sequencer and damage deliverability. The cost of verification (fractions of a cent per email) is trivial compared to the cost of a bounced domain.
Confidence Scoring
Many enrichment providers return confidence scores with their data. Use these. A "verified" email from Apollo is more reliable than a "guessed" email pattern from a secondary provider. Build your COALESCE logic to prefer high-confidence results even if they came from a later waterfall step.
Freshness Tracking
Add a timestamp column that records when each field was last enriched. This lets you identify stale data and selectively re-enrich records that haven't been updated in 90+ days, rather than re-running your entire list.
Human Review Sampling
Periodically spot-check enrichment accuracy on a random sample. Automated data quality can drift over time as providers change coverage or APIs update. A monthly review of 50-100 records catches systemic issues before they compound.
The data you gather during enrichment can significantly improve downstream qualification accuracy. If you're using an AI qualification layer, pass enrichment results—employee count, tech stack, funding data—as runtime context so the qualifier works from real data rather than web scraping alone. This is exactly how Octave's Qualify agent works with Clay: you map enriched Clay columns into the agent's runtime context for precise, data-driven scoring.
Scaling Enrichment Without Scaling Costs
As your outbound volume grows, enrichment costs can become a significant line item. Here's how teams scale to 10,000+ leads per month without proportional cost increases.
Tiered Enrichment Depth
Not every lead deserves the same enrichment investment. Build tiers based on fit signals:
| Tier | Criteria | Enrichment Depth | Typical Cost per Lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: High fit | Target ICP, strong signals | Full waterfall + deep research + personalized sequence | 15-25 credits |
| Tier 2: Possible fit | Partial ICP match | Basic waterfall + standard qualification | 6-10 credits |
| Tier 3: Unknown fit | New or unscored leads | Minimal enrichment + lightweight score | 2-4 credits |
Tier 3 leads that score well get promoted to Tier 2 or Tier 1 for deeper enrichment. This way, you're investing the most in leads with the highest potential return.
Webhook-Triggered Flows
Instead of batch-processing large lists, trigger enrichment via webhooks when leads enter your system—from form fills, CRM events, or signal platforms. This processes leads in near-real-time, distributes enrichment costs over time, and ensures leads are activated while the signal is fresh.
Provider Consolidation
More providers doesn't always mean better coverage. After your third or fourth waterfall step, incremental hit rates drop significantly (often below 10% of remaining blanks). Audit your waterfall regularly. If a provider is filling less than 5% of its attempts, consider removing it to simplify the workflow and reduce cost.
From Enrichment to Action: Closing the Loop
Enrichment is only valuable if it drives action. The most effective Clay workflows don't stop at filling in data fields—they feed enriched, qualified data directly into activation steps.
A common progression looks like this:
- Enrich leads with waterfall providers for email, company data, and signals
- Qualify against your ICP using enriched firmographics and signals
- Generate personalized sequences using the enriched context
- Push to your sequencer or CRM for execution
The gap that most teams hit is between step 2 and step 3. You've got great data, but turning that data into personalized, relevant messaging at scale is where generic prompt chains break down. The enrichment data is there; the context for how to use it isn't.
This is where pairing Clay's enrichment capabilities with a context layer for qualification and messaging becomes powerful. Clay handles the data pipeline. A context engine like Octave handles the strategic intelligence—matching leads to personas, selecting the right playbook, and generating messaging grounded in your actual positioning rather than a prompt someone wrote months ago. For a hands-on walkthrough, see our guide on using Clay with Octave.
Common Mistakes in Clay Enrichment Workflows
These are the issues we see most often when auditing Clay tables:
- Running all enrichments unconditionally. Every column should have a condition. Unconditional enrichment wastes credits on leads that won't make it through qualification.
- No verification layer. Sending unverified emails tanks your deliverability. Always verify before activating.
- Enriching company data per person. Separate company enrichment into its own table. Enrich once per domain, reference everywhere.
- Over-engineering waterfalls. Three providers per field is usually enough. A fourth or fifth provider rarely justifies the added complexity and cost.
- Embedding qualification logic in Clay formulas. Complex scoring formulas are brittle and hard to update. Consider using a dedicated qualification layer that your whole team can adjust without editing Clay formulas. Tools like Octave let you manage qualification centrally and consume it via API.
- No data freshness tracking. Without timestamps, you have no idea whether enrichment data is current or stale.
- Ignoring provider rate limits. Running thousands of enrichments simultaneously can trigger rate limits, causing failures and incomplete data. Batch your runs.
FAQ
Two to three providers per field is the sweet spot for most teams. Beyond three, you get diminishing returns—each additional provider typically fills less than 10-15% of the remaining blanks while adding cost and complexity. Start with two, measure your coverage gap, and add a third only if the gap justifies the cost.
For work emails, aim for 85-92% with a multi-provider waterfall. For direct phone numbers, 40-60% is realistic. Company firmographics should be 90%+ since domain-based lookups have higher coverage. If your rates are significantly below these, your provider selection may not match your target segment.
Verify in Clay, before pushing to your sequencer. This way you catch bounces before they enter your sending infrastructure. Most sequencers also verify, but by then the bad data has already consumed a slot in your campaign. Verifying upstream is cheaper and cleaner.
Test on a representative sample of 100-200 leads from your actual ICP. Run each provider independently and compare hit rates and data accuracy. Put the provider with the best combination of coverage, accuracy, and cost first. Provider performance varies significantly by segment, so don't rely on general benchmarks.
Quarterly is a reasonable default for active pipeline leads. Job change data decays fastest—roughly 30% of B2B contacts change roles annually. Company data like employee count and tech stack changes more slowly. Track enrichment timestamps and re-enrich based on data age rather than a blanket schedule.
Absolutely. Enriched data like tech stack, funding history, and employee count makes AI messaging significantly more relevant. If you're using AI agents for sequence generation, pass enriched fields as runtime context so the agent works from real data rather than web inference. This is one of the primary advantages of connecting Clay enrichment to a context engine—the enrichment data feeds directly into more accurate qualification and more personalized content.
Running deep enrichment on unqualified leads. If 40% of your list doesn't fit your ICP, you're wasting 40% of your enrichment budget on leads that will never convert. A lightweight qualification step early in the workflow—even a simple industry and employee count filter—can cut costs dramatically.
Key Takeaways
Building effective Clay enrichment workflows comes down to a few core principles:
- Waterfall for coverage, not complexity. Two to three providers per field, ordered by coverage and cost for your specific ICP.
- Qualify early, enrich deep later. Filter out non-fits before running expensive enrichments. A lightweight qualification gate can cut costs by 30-40%.
- Separate company and person enrichment. Enrich domains once, reference everywhere. This alone can save significant credits.
- Verify before activating. Email verification is cheap insurance against deliverability damage.
- Build modular, not monolithic. Focused tables that each do one thing well are easier to maintain and debug than 30-column tables that try to do everything.
- Track and iterate. Monitor hit rates, cost per qualified lead, and data accuracy. Audit quarterly.
Clay gives you the execution engine to build these workflows. The missing piece for most teams is the strategic layer—the context infrastructure that tells the workflow what to do with the data once it's there. Enrichment data is raw material. Turning it into personalized, relevant outbound at scale requires pairing that data with structured GTM context—your ICPs, personas, positioning, and competitive intelligence.
If you're building Clay enrichment workflows and want to connect them to a context layer that handles qualification, persona matching, and sequence generation from a single source of truth, Octave integrates natively with Clay to close that gap.