Coco + Clay

Connect Clay and Coco can pull Clay-enriched data into its own workflows — account research, design-partner shortlists, draft outreach. Coco doesn't replace Clay's workflow builder; it operates alongside it, using Clay as one of several enrichment sources (alongside Apollo, ZoomInfo, and public web). When Coco runs an enrichment that's better-served by Clay's data sources, it routes through Clay; when another source is sharper, Coco picks that. About 1-2 credits per Clay-enriched record pulled into a Coco workflow, plus whatever Clay charges on its side.

Try Coco for free → · 1,000 credits free · no card · ~2-min setup

What Coco does with Clay

The integration model is read-and-route: Coco pulls Clay-enriched data into the workflows it runs, and routes enrichment requests to Clay when Clay is the right source.

Pulls Clay-enriched data into account research. When Coco runs an account research pass, it can read enrichment data from Clay tables you've already built — firmographics, tech stack, hiring signals, contact-level fields — and incorporate that data into the research brief. See research accounts →.

Uses Clay as one enrichment source among several. When Coco identifies missing fields on a contact and proposes enrichment, it can route the enrichment through Clay (which itself routes across Clay's own data providers) when Clay's data sources are sharper than Apollo's or ZoomInfo's. The choice of source surfaces in the enrichment proposal — you see which provider is being used before approving. About 1-2 credits per Clay-enriched record on Coco's side. See enrich contacts →.

Feeds Clay tables into design-partner shortlists. If you've built a Clay table that scores prospects against your ICP, Coco can read that table as a target list and run its design-partner workflow against it — research depth, fit evaluation, drafted outreach. See find design partners →.

Drafts outreach grounded in Clay-sourced context. Once an enriched list is approved, Coco can draft first-touch outreach using the Clay data as input. The same draft-and-approve flow applies — drafts queue in your Gmail Drafts folder for review.

Doesn't replace Clay workflows. This is the deliberate scoping. Clay is a workflow builder for enrichment-heavy operations — you configure the columns, the providers, the conditional logic, and Clay runs the table. Coco doesn't try to be that. If you have Clay tables you've already invested in, they keep running. Coco reads from them and operates around them.

How to connect

The connection flow is built into Coco's integration sheet.

1. Go to /app/integrations.
2. Pick Clay.
3. Connect via Clay's API (paste API key) or auth flow depending on what Clay exposes for your plan.
4. Coco confirms the connection and tests read access against a sample table.
5. Approve the first workflow that pulls Clay data (typically account research or contact enrichment).

The connection is per-user. Your Clay API key is encrypted at rest. See the security model → for the trust posture across all integrations.

Approval gates by action type

The read side is free of approval. The write side — wherever Clay consumes credits or wherever the enriched data lands in your CRM — gates on approval at the start. Once you've approved a recurring pattern, you can graduate that specific workflow to autonomous execution inside the rules you set.

Workflows that use Clay

Clay is connected to most of Coco's enrichment-and-research workflows. The ones that lean hardest:

• Enrich contacts → — Clay as one of several enrichment sources, with source attribution preserved.
• Research accounts → — Clay tables and Clay-enriched data feed the research brief.
• Find design partners → — Clay tables can serve as the target list input.

Coco pulls from Clay as input; the actual writes land in your CRM through the CRM integration, gated separately.

Coco vs. Claygent — different layers

Clay has its own AI agent — Claygent. Honest framing: Claygent and Coco operate at adjacent but different layers of the GTM stack.

Claygent runs inside Clay. It's an AI agent built to do enrichment tasks at scale within Clay's workflow model — researching prospects, finding email addresses, qualifying leads against criteria, running per-row research that would otherwise require manual effort. Claygent's specialty is enrichment depth and breadth at the row level inside a Clay table.

Coco is the cross-tool GTM co-worker. The drafted outreach that lands in your Gmail Drafts folder, the pre-meeting brief that pulls from Clay plus your CRM plus your calendar, the post-meeting follow-up that touches multiple tools, the CRM hygiene that runs against records Claygent enriched — that's outside Claygent's scope. It's the work that crosses tools.

Many teams run both. Claygent for the row-level enrichment depth that Clay's workflow model handles best. Coco for the cross-tool work that turns that enriched data into action — outreach, follow-up, CRM hygiene, meeting prep, marketing handoff. The two products live in adjacent layers and don't compete on the same wedge.

If you're picking enrichment providers and trying to decide between Clay/Claygent and Coco's own enrichment routing (which uses Apollo, ZoomInfo, and Clay itself as options), the honest answer is: if Clay is already the source of truth for your enrichment workflows, keep it. Coco operates around it. If you're starting fresh and want enrichment as one feature of a broader co-worker, Coco's built-in enrichment routing covers the most common cases without needing a separate Clay table for each. The two are complements, not substitutes.

Try Coco for free → · 1,000 credits free · no card · ~2-min setup

Frequently asked questions

Does Coco replace my Clay workflows?

No. Clay is a workflow builder for enrichment-heavy operations; Coco is a cross-tool GTM co-worker. They live in adjacent layers. Coco reads from Clay tables and routes some enrichment requests through Clay, but it doesn't try to replace the Clay workflow model — if you have tables you've already invested in, they keep running.

How does Coco compare to Claygent?

Different layers. Claygent does row-level enrichment inside a Clay table at scale. Coco does cross-tool GTM execution — outreach, follow-up, CRM hygiene, meeting prep — across your full stack. Many teams run both: Claygent inside Clay for enrichment depth; Coco around it for the work that crosses tools. The two complement each other.

Will Coco consume my Clay credits?

Only when you approve an enrichment that routes through Clay. The read side (pulling already-enriched data from your tables) doesn't consume Clay credits. Anything that triggers a new Clay enrichment surfaces the Clay-side credit cost in the approval preview before running. You always see the cost on both sides before approving.

Can Coco trigger Clay enrichments?

Yes — approval-gated. Coco proposes the enrichment with the source provider (Clay), the count, and the Clay-side credit cost visible. You approve; Clay runs the enrichment; the enriched data flows back into Coco's workflow.

What if Clay isn't the best source for an enrichment?

Coco picks the source that fits the request best. When you propose enrichment, the preview shows which provider is being used and why. If Apollo or ZoomInfo has sharper data for a particular request, Coco routes there instead. You can also configure preferences — "always prefer Clay for technographic data; always prefer Apollo for contact emails" — and Coco follows those rules.

Get started

If your Clay tables are already doing the enrichment work but the data is stuck inside Clay (no cross-tool follow-through, no outreach, no CRM hygiene), the integration takes a couple minutes and the first workflow that pulls from your Clay tables can run immediately.

Try Coco for free → · 1,000 credits free · no card · ~2-min setup

Or book a walkthrough → if you'd rather see the Clay workflow in action first.