Oracle wins Latin American telco deal covering 30 million subscribers. TENNESSEE, UNITED STATES - Oracle has secured a deal with Clay, a major Latin American telecommunications carrier, to deploy OCI Field Service applications and an AI data platform across Clay's 30-million-subscriber operation - one of the largest publicly disclosed AI customer service automation contracts in the Latin American telco market. According to a report from CX Today, the deal was disclosed on Oracle's Q4 2026 earnings call. Clay selects Oracle to automate customer service for 30M subscribers. Clay's deployment covers OCI Field Service applications for field technician scheduling, dispatch, and service order management - the operational workflow layer between a telco's CRM and network operations - and Oracle's AI data platform to automate the customer service interactions generated by a 30-million-subscriber base. Oracle's Q4 2026 telco wins - Clay in Latin America alongside MasOrange, Vodafone, Kyivstar, and UAE carrier e& - represent a concentrated set of contracts that establish Oracle's OCI stack as a competitive AI customer service platform against purpose-built telco BSS/OSS vendors. Latin America's large subscriber-base telcos present a high-value AI automation target: complex service environments with high contact volumes, multilingual support requirements, and significant operational cost pressure - the combination that makes OCI Field Service and AI data platform economics compelling at Clay's scale. "This is why Clay, a major telecommunications provider in Latin America, chose OCI Field Service applications and our AI data platform to automate customer service for their 30 million subscribers this quarter," said Michael Sicilia, Executive Vice President, Oracle. Oracle launches outcome-based AI agent pricing across its application suite. Oracle announced outcome-based commercial pricing for AI agents across its application suite on the same earnings call - charging on results rather than seat licenses or conversation counts, a model that removes the per-subscriber cost risk that makes AI platform deals difficult to close at telco scale. The shift to outcome-based pricing reflects how Oracle is structuring AI agent deployment differently from traditional SaaS licensing - aligning Oracle's revenue to the automation value delivered rather than to headcount or usage volume. OCI Field Service handles high-frequency operational decisions - technician routing, scheduling optimization, service order sequencing - that at 30-million-subscriber scale generate millions of automated workflow interactions per day, exactly the workload volume that outcome-based pricing is designed to serve. For telco CX operators, the Clay deal demonstrates that AI-driven field service and customer service automation is now contractually live at tier-one subscriber scale in Latin America - not a pilot, not a proof of concept, but a Q4 2026 production deployment. For BPO and CX operators managing enterprise telco accounts, Oracle's Clay win signals that AI customer service automation at subscriber scale is moving into contracted production across major Latin American carriers. The shift to outcome-based pricing removes the financial barrier for telcos evaluating AI automation of contact center workflows previously delivered by outsourced teams. As Oracle extends this model globally, BPO operators running telco CX programs will face increasing displacement pressure from AI-first service automation at the subscriber level.

Clay vs Bitscale: which GTM tool is right for your stack? Faraz Ahmed 18 Jun 2026 Clay and Bitscale solve the same core problem: turning a raw list of companies or people into an enriched, personalized, campaign-ready dataset by orchestrating dozens of data providers and AI steps in a spreadsheet-style interface. The difference is in depth versus accessibility. Clay is the deeper, more extensible platform with a steeper learning curve and a credit model that punishes inefficiency. Bitscale is faster to learn, friendlier to smaller teams, and covers the most common GTM workflows with less configuration. ThynkGrowth run both in production for client work, and its team holds Clay's partner certifications, so this comparison comes from daily use rather than a features-page skim. Here is how to actually choose. What both tools do well. Before the differences, the shared foundation. Both tools give you: * A table interface where each row is a company or person and each column is an enrichment step. * Waterfall enrichment: try provider A, fall back to provider B, then C, which materially improves match rates over any single data source. * AI columns that can research, summarize, classify, and write personalized copy per row. * Integrations to push finished rows into sequencers and CRMs. If your mental model is "a spreadsheet that does the SDR research work automatically," both tools deliver that. The question is which one fits your team. Where Clay wins. Depth of the data marketplace. Clay gives you one contract to buy data from 200+ providers and keeps expanding. For unusual data needs, obscure technographics, niche registries, specific signal sources, Clay is more likely to have a native path. Extensibility and platform ambition. HTTP API columns, webhook triggers, and formula logic mean that a skilled operator can build almost anything in Clay. Complex multi-branch qualification logic, custom scoring models, multi-step AI research chains: this is where Clay has no real ceiling. And Clay is expanding well past enrichment: a native Sequencer, Audiences for centralizing first and third party data, ad audience syncing to LinkedIn, Meta, and Google, and an Agent plugin with API and CLI access so you can build tables directly through a coding agent. Clay is clearly positioning itself as the full GTM operating system, which is also why the pricing has moved the way it has. Claygent and AI research. Clay's AI research agent is genuinely strong at open-ended web research tasks per row, the kind of "find out how this company handles X" questions that turn into sharp personalization. Ecosystem and talent. More templates, more community content, more certified operators available to hire. Clay crossed 100 million dollars in ARR and now claims over 500,000 GTM teams on the platform, and enterprise logos like Anthropic (3x enrichment coverage) and Intercom (140 percent growth in outbound pipeline) tell you the ceiling is high. If you plan to staff the function, the Clay talent pool is far deeper. The tradeoffs: the learning curve is real. Expect a few weeks before a new operator is efficient, and expect early credit burn while they learn. And the recent pricing update made this worse: Clay now charges action credits on top of enrichment credits, so every step in a workflow has a meter running. Credit pricing rewards people who design workflows carefully and punishes exploration. For a team without a dedicated operator, Clay can become an expensive tool that one person half-understands. Where Bitscale wins. Time to first workflow. Bitscale gets a competent generalist from signup to a working enrichment flow in hours, not weeks. It ships ready-to-run playbooks for the common motions, prospecting, competitor targeting, automated outbound, champion tracking, hiring signals, and their own benchmark is about 20 minutes from setup to first outreach sent. The interface makes fewer assumptions about prior GTM engineering knowledge. Pricing, and it is not close anymore. Clay's recent pricing update introduced action credits, meaning you now burn credits not just on enrichments but on the actions themselves. Bitscale runs 349 dollars for 15,000 credits with unlimited actions. For the bread-and-butter jobs, enrich a list, verify emails, generate personalized lines, push to a sequencer, the same workflow now costs meaningfully less in Bitscale, and the bill surprises you less. CRM-native operation. Bitscale has positioned itself as the GTM data layer for your CRM: it runs two-way sync with Salesforce and HubSpot, pushes only changed fields back, auto-fills missing emails, mobiles, titles, and firmographics from 100+ waterfall sources, and flags CRM rot (job changes, dead emails, dead domains) the day it happens. Their waterfall coverage claims are strong, 90 percent plus on emails and 95 percent plus on mobiles, with verification baked in so bounce rates stay under half a percent. For a team whose GTM life lives inside the CRM, this is a genuinely different architecture than exporting to a table and re-importing. Signal stacking. Bitscale tracks 15 buying triggers, exec hires, tech-stack changes, viral LinkedIn posts, funding events, and lets you stack them (Series B plus hiring SDRs plus new VP Sales) to surface accounts a single-signal tool would miss. For signal-led motions specifically, this is more built-in than Clay offers out of the box. Founder-friendly. For a solo founder or a 2-person growth team running their own outbound, Bitscale is the tool that will actually get used rather than admired. The tradeoffs: less depth at the edges. Fewer niche providers, less room for exotic custom logic, a smaller ecosystem. Teams occasionally hit a wall on unusual requirements that Clay would handle. The decision framework. Choose Clay if: * You have (or will hire, or will contract) a dedicated operator for at least a few hours a week. * Your workflows involve complex qualification logic, custom scoring, or unusual data sources. * You are an agency or a team running many campaigns for many segments, where Clay's depth compounds. * Signal-led systems with multiple trigger sources are the goal. Choose Bitscale if: * The person running enrichment also has three other jobs. * Your workflows are the standard 80 percent: enrich, verify, personalize, send. * Price matters. At 349 dollars for 15,000 credits with unlimited actions, Bitscale is the clear value winner since Clay moved to action-credit pricing. * You are validating outbound and want results this month, not a platform investment. And honestly, some teams should run both. ThynkGrowth do. Clay handles the complex signal orchestration and the campaigns with heavy custom logic. Bitscale handles fast-turnaround list builds where setup speed matters more than depth. They are not mutually exclusive line items at these price points. What actually matters more than the tool. A blunt note from running these systems daily: the tool choice moves results maybe 10 percent. The inputs move results 90 percent. A precise ICP definition, a signal worth acting on, verified contact data, and messaging that speaks to a real problem will outperform in either tool. A vague ICP and a scraped list will fail identically in both. So pick the tool that matches your team's operating reality, then spend your energy on targeting and messaging. If you want the whole system, tool, workflows, signals, copy, and reporting, built and operated for you, that is precisely the work ThynkGrowth do at ThynkGrowth as an outbound GTM partner. Faq. Is Bitscale cheaper than Clay? Yes, and the gap widened after Clay's recent pricing update introduced action credits. Bitscale charges 349 dollars for 15,000 credits with unlimited actions, while the same workflow in Clay now consumes credits on both enrichments and actions. An efficient Clay build can narrow the gap, but it requires an operator who knows how to design credit-efficient tables. Can Bitscale replace Clay completely? For the most common GTM workflows, yes. Teams with complex multi-source signal orchestration, custom API integrations, or unusual data requirements will still find capabilities in Clay that Bitscale does not match. Do I need to know how to code to use Clay or Bitscale? No. Both are no-code table interfaces. Clay rewards technical thinking and takes longer to master; Bitscale is designed to be productive within the first day. Which is better for agencies? Clay, in most cases. The depth, template reusability across clients, and larger operator talent pool compound at agency scale. Many agencies still keep Bitscale alongside it for fast, simple list builds.

Clay vs Clearbit: which wins for data enrichment? Clay is a workflow builder running waterfall enrichment across many providers. Clearbit is now Breeze Intelligence inside HubSpot, a native enrichment product for HubSpot marketing teams. Here is the verdict, plus a third option without HubSpot lock-in or workflow building. Clay providers Data marketplace Breeze Intelligence Clearbit status HubSpot-native since 2023 Clay Launch Plus provider costs Clearbit pricing Into HubSpot/Breeze tiers Quick comparison. Feature matrix across all tools reviewed | Feature | Clay | Clearbit (Breeze) | Enrich | | Type | Workflow builder | HubSpot-native enrichment | Waterfall enrichment API | | Data model | Many providers, waterfall | Primarily single-source | Waterfall across providers | | Best for | Flexible data ops | HubSpot marketing teams | Provider-agnostic teams | | Ecosystem | Provider-agnostic | HubSpot-centric | Any CRM | | Pricing | Credits + provider costs | Bundled in HubSpot/Breeze | $49/mo (100K credits) | | Match rates | High (multi-source) | Reported decline post-acquisition | High (multi-source) | | Learning curve | Steep | Low inside HubSpot | Minimal (API or upload) | | MCP / AI agents | Via integrations | / | / | Pricing comparison. Monthly cost by lookup volume | Volume | Clay | Clearbit (Breeze) | Enrich | | Free | Yes, limited credits | Tied to HubSpot tiers | 100 free credits | | Entry paid | $167/mo (Launch) + providers | Bundled into HubSpot/Breeze | $49/mo (100K credits) | | Mid-tier | $446/mo (Growth) + providers | HubSpot packaging | $149/mo (500K credits) | | Top tier | Enterprise, custom | Enterprise HubSpot tiers | $499/mo (2.5M credits) | Quick verdict. Choose Clearbit (Breeze Intelligence) if you are deep in the HubSpot ecosystem and want native enrichment for marketing and forms inside HubSpot, with minimal setup. Choose Clay if you want provider-agnostic waterfall enrichment, AI research, and the flexibility to build custom data workflows, and you have appetite for a learning curve. Choose a focused enrichment layer like Enrich if you want high waterfall match rates without HubSpot lock-in or workflow building. Enrich queries multiple providers per contact and returns one verified record through a simple API, MCP server, or upload, on transparent per-credit pricing. Breeze Intelligence for HubSpot-native enrichment with low setup. Clay for provider-agnostic waterfall workflows. Enrich for high match rates without HubSpot lock-in or workflow building. What Clay is best at. Clay is a flexible engine for go-to-market data work, built around waterfall enrichment. For each record, it can query a chain of providers and keep the first verified result, which lifts coverage above any single source. Layered on top are AI research, spreadsheet-style workflows, and integrations that let you run enrichment and outreach end to end. You pay credits for the data you actually use. For teams that want maximum coverage and the freedom to combine sources, Clay is the more powerful option. It is not tied to one vendor's database, which matters as single-source match rates fluctuate. The trade-off is complexity. Clay has a real learning curve, workflows take time to build and maintain, and credit costs can climb with heavy usage. It rewards teams that invest in it. What Clearbit (Breeze Intelligence) is best at. Clearbit's strength was always clean B2B enrichment, and under HubSpot it is now Breeze Intelligence, a native enrichment layer inside the HubSpot platform. For HubSpot-centric marketing teams, that integration is the headline: enrichment on forms, contact records, and workflows without leaving HubSpot, with minimal setup. If your entire go-to-market motion runs in HubSpot, Breeze Intelligence is the path of least resistance. It is built for that ecosystem and removes the integration work other tools require. The trade-offs since the acquisition are real. Practitioners report rising effective pricing as enrichment moves into HubSpot's packaging, and some report declining match rates compared with the standalone Clearbit of years past. And because it is HubSpot-native, it is less useful if you are not committed to HubSpot or need provider-agnostic data. Head-to-head by what matters. Data model and match rates: Clay wins on coverage by combining providers in a waterfall, which holds up even when any single source degrades. Clearbit relies more on a primary source, and practitioners have reported match rates slipping post-acquisition. If maximum fill rate matters, Clay's multi-provider model is more resilient. Ecosystem fit: Clearbit wins for HubSpot users. As Breeze Intelligence, it is native to HubSpot and requires almost no setup for HubSpot marketing teams. Clay is provider-agnostic and integrates broadly, but it is not a native part of any CRM. Your ecosystem largely decides this category. Pricing: Clay's usage-based credits give you control and transparency over what you spend. Clearbit's pricing is increasingly bundled into HubSpot and Breeze packaging, which can be convenient for HubSpot customers but harder to evaluate on a per-record basis and reportedly more expensive than before. For predictable per-record cost, Clay is clearer. Flexibility and use cases: Clay wins on flexibility: AI research, custom workflows, and combining sources for creative outbound and data ops. Clearbit is more focused on straightforward enrichment within HubSpot. Power users lean Clay; HubSpot marketers lean Clearbit. Setup and learning curve: Clearbit wins on simplicity for HubSpot users, with low setup. Clay requires real time to learn and build. If you want enrichment running today inside HubSpot, Clearbit is faster; if you want a flexible engine and will invest in it, Clay. Where Enrich fits in. Clay gives you waterfall coverage but asks you to build workflows. Clearbit gives you simplicity but ties you to HubSpot and a single source. Enrich is the focused middle: provider-agnostic waterfall enrichment delivered as a ready-to-use service. Enrich queries multiple providers per contact and returns one CRM-ready record with both email and phone, through a simple API, an MCP server, or a direct upload, with no HubSpot dependency and no workflow building. You get high match rates from combining sources, on transparent per-credit pricing, and you can write back into HubSpot, Salesforce, or any system. For teams that want enrichment results without lock-in or a learning curve, it is the cleaner path. Cost comparison Clay Launch: $167/mo platform fee plus separate provider costs. Clearbit: bundled into HubSpot/Breeze packaging. Enrich Growth Pack: $49/mo all-in for 100K credits, waterfall built in, no HubSpot dependency. Which should you choose? Choose Clearbit (Breeze) if you live in HubSpot and want native, low-setup enrichment for marketing. Choose Clay if you want provider-agnostic waterfall enrichment and flexible workflows and will invest in learning it. Choose a focused enrichment API if you want high match rates without HubSpot lock-in or workflow building. Frequently asked questions. Try Enrich for free. 100 free API credits. No credit card required. Start enriching data in minutes.