Cleanlist AI Reviews

First of all, Cleanlist is a great product, and it’s encouraging to see it evolving so quickly.

My concern is that AppSumo early adopters are being left behind as the product develops.

The deal terms explicitly promise “All future Starter (Tiers 1, 2), Pro (Tiers 3-7) plan updates”, including automatic transfer to a new plan if the plan name changes.

I understand that Cleanlist does much more today than when I purchased my Tier 3 license. I’m not expecting every new feature or AI model to be included unconditionally. However, I did expect to benefit from future updates to the Pro plan.

Instead, my Tier 3 license seems to miss not only newer Pro features, but even features now offered in the Starter plan, such as sequences and Clu.

This raises a simple question: what does “all future plan updates” actually mean for existing AppSumo customers? If our licenses remain stuck with an increasingly outdated feature set while the product evolves, their value steadily diminishes.

I understand the need for sustainable revenue, and I’m simply asking how these original deal terms are being honoured.

I backed Cleanlist because I believed in the product, and I hope there’s a way for early supporters to continue growing with it rather than being left behind.

Finally, the 100-contact-per-list limit on Tier 3 is quite restrictive, although I acknowledge it was clearly stated in the original deal.

Thanks for taking the time to address this!

Hi, Victor.

This increase of limit to 1,000 is a huge benefit for us. Everyone at our company likes Cleanlist, and we are regularly using it. I will probably give you five tacos, especially since there are some hidden benefits that are outperforming Clay and Apollo in our case. Also, the advances you made in the last few weeks are very impressive.

I still want to give you two things that we realized:

- Sometimes, if we run the not recognized leads again through the platform, we are getting around 5% of new results. That means some of the results are being skipped in the initial run.
- One thing connected with the latest update: before, you had a small button in the upper left corner where we could switch between the lists. Because this button disappeared, now we need to go back to the lists, search for the list, and open it. This is connected with the limitation of the number of leads within the list. If we work on a big data set, we need to make so many additional steps. If this button would return the option of switching between the lists once you are already inside one of the lists, it would be cool.

Otherwise, keep on with the great work.

The product is good, intuitive, and delivers results. However, results are lower confidence than Clay, at least for our use case, and we actually bought Cleanlist as a replacement for Clay.

With ourAppsumo T7, it should be all right, especially on the credit system—it seems to be okay. However, this limit of 500 rows per table is simply not useful at all. Even with smaller lists of 3,000 contacts, it means we need to work on six lists separately, then merge and combine them, which obviously creates lots of work. This 500-row limit makes it even less useful.

Compared to the credit system, Cleanlist sells credits at $0.10 per credit. Or we would need to get an expensive monthly plan. Obviously, with AppSumo, why paying for monthly credits, are the only possibility left, $0.10 per credit, is almost double what we pay for Clay. In Clay, we do not have any limitations on the amount of rows.

So I'm a bit disappointed with the product. However, if the amount of rows will increase, the usefulness of Cleanlist would grow immensely in our use cases. And if the credit costs would be around $0.05, it would be a good alternative for Clay for smaller organizations. At the cost of around $0.03 per credit, I see that Cleanlist could become a great alternative to Clay.

For now, this 500-row limit makes it difficult to use, and $0.10 per credit is too expensive to use.

Je vous le recommande

The lead identification is top-notch, I can't argue with it. It picks up emails and phone numbers that Dropcontact doesn't find.

The only issue-- and it's really a non-issue, are the limits.

I wish I could use it for all my lead research, but I find myself using it sparingly-- because these are the big guns.

So it still get a 5 star review because the alternative is literally £100/mo.

Update, October 2026: both fixes I asked for have landed. The 500 cap on "Extension Leads" is gone, and v2 now returns each contact's linkedin_url and provider via GET /api/v2/lead-lists/{id}/leads. We moved our enrichment to v2 in September and it has run on v2 since. The four weeks of support silence below did happen, but the team has since followed up with me directly, and the API now does what we need.

Tier-5 (API) buyer, reviewing the API and support experience with dates, so you can judge for yourself.

The enrichment itself works: the waterfall found verified emails and we only paid for hits. Five tacos for that alone. The rest is why this review isn't five.

The API design has a trap. v1's POST /enrich/bulk writes every result into one system list ("Extension Leads") with no destination parameter. That list is capped at 500, delete-protected, and when it fills, every enrichment call returns 403 lead_cap_reached. Your pipeline just stops. The portal can't clear it: "Delete leads" errors on that list (we tested with 500 rows and with 2), and there's no move-to-list, only copy.

The support timeline, from the ticket:
- Jul 28: reported the blocked pipeline with full detail. The AI bot's answer recommended a "move to another list" feature that does not exist in the product.
- Jul 28: asked for a human. Got "the team will be back in 2 hours."
- Jul 30: a support rep said he was raising it with the CTO.
- Aug 4: nothing. Asked again.
- Aug 8: told we were "using the wrong endpoint" and should use the new v2 API.
- Aug 9: we tested v2 with a real contact and replied the same day: v2 lets you pick the destination list, but its status endpoint returns no per-contact results at all ("result": null, no linkedin_url, no provider), so there is no way to verify who was actually found. We offered a workflow_id to reproduce. The CTO joined and said "I'm looking into this."
- Aug 13: silence. Asked again.
- Aug 18: gave a final date of Aug 21 before posting this review.
- Aug 25: still nothing. Total: four weeks, zero fixes delivered by support.

We unblocked ourselves: v2's list endpoints let us drain the full list with our own API key, which support apparently didn't know when telling us it was impossible. That's also the fix for anyone else hitting the 403: DELETE /api/v2/lead-lists/{id}/leads works on "Extension Leads."

What's still broken today: safe enrichment (v1, the only version that returns per-contact results) is still hard-wired into a capped list, so the jam will recur for every API customer at 500 contacts.

I'll update this review the day either fix lands: per-contact results on the v2 status endpoint, or a lifted cap on the v1 list. Both are small. The ticket has everything needed to reproduce.