A Clay alternative that does the work
Clay is a go-to-market workbench for building enrichment and outbound workflows. Their site
Clay is the better product if you have someone whose job is to build and tune outbound workflows. Kamu is the better product if you do not, because the work happens without anyone opening it. They are not really the same category: one is a workbench, the other is a worker.
Clay is very good at what it is. You compose a table, pick enrichment providers per column, write the conditional logic, and get precise control over how a prospect list is built and scored. Teams that know exactly what they want get further with Clay than with almost anything else.
That control is also the cost. A Clay workflow produces nothing until someone designs it, and keeps producing only while someone maintains it. The 2026 pricing model makes the same point in a different way: it charges Data Credits for the data and Actions for each step of each workflow, so the shape of what you built shows up on the bill. That is a reasonable trade when a person owns the outbound function. It is the wrong trade when the person who would own it is the one writing the product.
Kamu starts from the other end. You give it a URL, it decides who is worth writing to and what to say, and it does that daily inside hard plan limits. You do not compose the workflow, which means you also cannot tune it the way a Clay operator can. What you get instead is that nothing waits on your attention.
Side by side
| Kamu | Clay | |
|---|---|---|
| Who does the work | Kamu decides what to do next and does it on its own schedule, unattended. | You design the workflow; Clay runs what you designed, when you run it. |
| What you configure | Objectives and pace. You choose which jobs are on and how quickly Kamu moves. | Tables, columns, providers, conditional logic, and the sequence that follows. |
| Scope | Outbound plus SEO articles, social posts, video ads, a landing page and directory listings. | Prospecting, enrichment and outbound. Content and ads are elsewhere. |
| What it costs | €25 Seed, €49 Starter, €149 Growth, €349 Scale, monthly. No free tier, cancel any month. | Free tier at 500 actions. Launch from $167/mo, Growth from $446/mo, or $54 and $185 billed annually. |
| What the bill tracks | Credits per action, with a plan ceiling Kamu stops at rather than exceeds. | Data Credits for enrichment plus Actions per workflow step: 15,000 actions on Launch, 40,000 on Growth. |
| Trying it first | No trial. You pick a plan before it starts. | A free tier that never expires: 500 actions and 100 data credits a month, unlimited seats. |
| Who it is built for | Solo founders and small teams with nobody doing growth full time. | Go-to-market and sales-ops people, increasingly mid-market and up. |
When Clay is the better choice
Pick Clay if someone will own it. If you have a growth or sales-ops person, Clay's ceiling is higher than Kamu's and it is not close: you can express targeting logic Kamu will not infer, plug in your own data providers, and audit exactly why each row scored the way it did. Pick Clay too if enrichment quality is the whole problem you are solving, or if your outbound depends on data sources Kamu does not read. And if you already have a working Clay build, keep it. Kamu is not a migration target for a system that someone is already tending well.
Questions
Is Kamu a Clay alternative?
Only if what you wanted from Clay was the outcome rather than the control. Clay is a workbench: its value is that you can express precisely how a list is built and scored, and that value is only realised by someone doing the expressing. Kamu is an agent that decides those things itself within hard plan limits. If your Clay account is unused because nobody had time to build in it, Kamu is a real alternative. If it is used well, Kamu is a downgrade in control.
Can Kamu do the enrichment Clay does?
Less of it, and less precisely. Kamu finds people who match the buyers in its plan, verifies that the address works before writing, and reads public signals about what someone recently shipped or posted. It does not offer a marketplace of enrichment providers per field, and it will not let you choose which vendor answers which column. If per-field provider control is what you need, that is Clay's job, not Kamu's.
Which is cheaper?
It depends on volume and on whose time you are counting. Both publish self-serve prices, so the sticker comparison is easy to make on their pricing pages. The comparison that actually matters is that Clay's output scales with the hours someone puts into it, and those hours are usually the scarcest thing a small team has. A cheap tool nobody operates costs more than an expensive one that runs.
Terms on this page
From the blog
Other comparisons
Claims about Clay were checked on . Pricing and features move, and some vendors do not publish prices at all. Check their own site before deciding. Sources: Clay pricing, Kamu pricing.