Comparison
Cordavo vs Clay
Clay is a great canvas for building enrichment recipes. Cordavo is for teams that want the research and angles done for them, delivered as mini briefs with verified contacts.
| Criteria | Cordavo | Clay |
|---|---|---|
| What you get | Ready-to-send researched accounts with briefs, evidence, and verified contacts. | A flexible canvas to build your own enrichment and workflows. |
| Who does the work | Cordavo handles discovery, validation, and drafting angles. | You design workflows, manage APIs, and QA outputs. |
| Speed to first send | Day one: you get a handful of researched accounts and angles. | Day one: you configure the stack; research quality depends on your recipes. |
| Volume vs. intent | Low-volume, high-intent accounts delivered continuously. | Volume depends on your sources; quality depends on your filters and validation. |
| Best for | Lean GTM teams wanting research done for them. | Ops/engineering-heavy teams that prefer to build their own data flows. |
Bottom line
Pick Cordavo if you want researched, high-intent accounts with angles today. Pick Clay if you want to build and maintain your own enrichment and routing logic.
See it in your stack
We will share an anonymized brief and how we would sync it into your CRM or sequences.