← Case studies
Relevant Software

Relevant Software

Filtrat vs Clay Waterfall vs Clearout — 301 leads.
Method: Clay waterfall side-by-side. 1,700+ emails found since.

“The waterfall finds more. Filtrat finds cleaner. We cancelled Clearout.”
leads tested301
Result96.2% validation accuracy
MethodSide-by-side comparison
Use caseFiltrat vs Clay waterfall vs Clearout
“As Head of Sales, I’m grateful our team has access to a product like filtrat. It gives us confidence in our outbound data quality and saves us real money on verification costs. The accuracy we see from filtrat changed how we approach list building.”
Nelia MorozykNelia MorozykHead of Sales, Relevant Software
“Since the comparison test I’ve run 1,700+ email searches through filtrat via Clay. The process doesn’t break, doesn’t timeout, scales without babysitting. As head of data research that’s what actually matters — uninterrupted list building without paying for every waterfall output from 5 different providers.”
Pavlo FirmanPavlo FirmanHead of Data Research, Relevant Software

The Setup

The data research team was paying for:

  1. A Clay waterfall with multiple email providers
  2. A Clearout subscription to double-check the waterfall’s results

The question: do we actually need Clearout, or can filtrat handle both finding and verification?

Test: run the same 301 leads through filtrat and the Clay waterfall, then verify both sets through Clearout as a neutral third party.

Who Found More?

The 95.3% is inflated. 38 of the waterfall’s “found” emails belonged to a different company than the target — wrong domain matched to wrong person. After removing mismatches, the real gap is 82.7% vs 69.8%.

What happened to the waterfall’s 287 “found” emails

Correct match: 249 (87%)
Wrong company: 38 (13%)

Filtrat domain mismatches

0

Waterfall domain mismatches

38 (13%)

Whose Emails Were Accurate?

Both sets verified by Clearout as neutral third party.

Filtrat’s 210 emails

96.2%

Valid (96.2%)
Catch-all (2.9%)
Invalid (1%)
ResultCount%
Valid20296.2%
Catch-all62.9%
Invalid21%

Waterfall’s 249 emails

92.4%

Valid (92.4%)
Catch-all (6.8%)
Invalid (0.4%)
Unknown (0.4%)
ResultCount%
Valid23092.4%
Catch-all176.8%
Invalid10.4%
Unknown10.4%

Usable Emails Out of 301 Leads

The waterfall produces more usable emails overall. Filtrat produces fewer but higher-confidence results with zero domain mismatches.

What Happened Next

1,700+Emails found via Clay since the test
Cancelled Clearout96.2% accuracy made double-checking unnecessary
0Timeouts at scale — no breaks, no babysitting

Key Numbers

Leads tested301
Filtrat detection rate69.8%
Waterfall detection rate (cleaned)82.7%
Filtrat validation accuracy96.2%
Waterfall validation accuracy (Clearout)92.4%
Domain mismatches (waterfall)38 (13%)
Domain mismatches (filtrat)0
Emails found via Clay since test1,700+
Clearout subscriptionCancelled
Timeouts at scale0

Takeaway

The waterfall finds more emails. Filtrat finds cleaner ones — zero domain mismatches and higher validation accuracy. The accuracy advantage plus the cost savings made the decision straightforward: cancel Clearout, run filtrat as the primary verification layer, use Clay for orchestration.

1,700+ email searches later, the process hasn’t broken once.

200 free credits.
No card.

Test your first list. See how many results you have been overpaying for.

MYKHAILO BURIAK · NIP: 8982334042 · REGON: 544788490 · ul. Mieszczańska 18/40, 50-201 Wrocław, Poland© 2026 filtrat.io