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

Quick Answer: Apollo wins on price ($99-299/mo vs $200-700/mo), coverage (275M records), and email accuracy (82%). Lusha wins on phone accuracy (85% vs 78% Apollo) and phone-centric workflows. Choose Apollo for email-heavy prospecting; choose Lusha only if phone outreach is primary. For most teams, Apollo's 3x lower cost and larger database make it the better default.

Quick Summary Table

The Price Gap: Apollo Wins 3x

Monthly cost comparison:

For a 3,000-person prospect list:

Apollo:

• Standard plan: $149/month
• 1,000 contacts/month limit (need 3 seats for 3,000)
• Cost: $149 × 3 = $447/month
• Cost per lead: $0.15

Lusha:

• Professional plan: $400/month
• 1,500 contacts/month limit (need 2 seats for 3,000)
• Cost: $400 × 2 = $800/month
• Cost per lead: $0.27

Apollo costs 44% less ($0.15 vs $0.27 per lead).

Scale to 10,000 leads/month:

Apollo:

• Advanced plan: $299/month (5,000 contacts/month)
• Need 2 seats: $598/month
• Cost per lead: $0.06

Lusha:

• Growth plan: $500/month (3,000 contacts/month)
• Need 4 seats: $2,000/month
• Cost per lead: $0.20

Apollo is 3.3x cheaper at scale.

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

Apollo total cost: $598/month

Lusha total cost: $2,000/month

Annual difference: $16,824

That's a hire-a-person-level cost difference.

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: $149/month
• 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: $7.45

Lusha approach:

• Tool cost: $400/month
• 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 20% more replies (20 vs 16) at 70% lower cost per reply ($7.45 vs $25).

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. €129/month vs €350/month = 2.7x cost difference 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: Updates ~30% of database monthly

Lusha: Updates ~25% of database monthly

Apollo's slightly more aggressive update schedule means fresher data.

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
• Budget is constrained
• You need large coverage (275M database)
• 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 don't mind paying 3x more

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: 81% effective accuracy
• Cost: $149/month
• Monthly leads: 1,000

Lusha approach:

• Email accuracy: 79%
• Phone accuracy: 85%
• Blended: 80% effective accuracy
• Cost: $400/month
• Monthly leads: 1,000

For a phone-primary team, Lusha's 85% phone accuracy is valuable. But is it worth paying $251/month extra?

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 the Lusha premium.

Lesson: Better process beats better data at this scale.

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

Default choice: Apollo. It's 3x cheaper, has bigger coverage, and delivers solid accuracy. Start here.

Upgrade to Lusha if:

• Phone is >50% of your outreach
• You're targeting European markets
• Budget is not constrained
• Phone accuracy gap directly impacts revenue

Use both if:

• You can afford it ($150 + $400 = $550/month)
• You do coordinated phone + email
• You're serving both US and Europe

For most SaaS, agencies, and startups: Apollo wins decisively on ROI.

Ready to test Apollo? Start Apollo free trial. Need European phone numbers? Lusha might be better—but test Apollo first to justify the cost.