6 Best ICP Scoring Tools in 2026 (Compared)

An ICP scoring tool ranks accounts or leads by how closely they match your ideal customer profile, so sales works the best fits first. This page is for teams that want the score in a table, a CRM or an agent, not just on a dashboard.

Most "ICP scoring" tools fall into two groups. Some own the scoring engine and take your data from elsewhere. Others own the data and leave the scoring to you. We rank both, and say which is which.

Define the profile first with how to turn an ICP into a working list. If you are new to the idea, read what lead scoring is. LeadOcean is one of the six, and we place it where it fits. For plans, see pricing.

TL;DR

What we evaluated

• How the score is built. A native scoring engine, a formula you write, or your own code on top of data. We say which.
• Data behind the score. A score is only as good as the fields. We checked what each tool gives you for industry, headcount, location and technology.
• API and MCP access. Can a script or an agent read the score and the fields without a seat in the app?
• Rate limit and pace. How fast you can score a list through the API.
• Price at volume. List price first, billed-yearly figure after it, and what 1M records cost where a public price exists. If there is none, we say so.

We did not run a head-to-head accuracy test. No vendor publishes a ground truth for fit, and a score is only right against your own closed-won list. Run the same 25 known accounts through any tool you shortlist.

1. Clay: best for custom fit scores built in a table

Clay does not ship a fixed ICP score. It gives you a table, a Formula column and AI columns, and you write the rules. Clay's lead scoring guide covers numeric totals, letter grades and Yes/No fit labels built with the Formula Generator (Clay University, September 2026).

That makes Clay the most flexible option here. You can weight company fit against persona fit, add a Claygent AI column for judgment calls, and sync the result to a CRM. The cost is that you build and maintain the model.

The API is available on every plan, including Free. Search volume is capped by plan: 50 results per request on Free, 500 on paid (Clay docs, September 2026). Clay publishes no rate limit number.

Pros

• Any scoring logic you can write, including AI judgment columns.
• Waterfalls fill missing fields from several data providers before the score runs.
• Free plan includes the API, so you can test the whole flow.
• An official MCP server for ChatGPT, Claude and Codex.
• An enrichment that returns nothing is not charged (Clay pricing, September 2026).

Cons

• You build the model. There is no out-of-the-box ICP score to switch on.
• Two meters, Actions and Data Credits. A fully enriched record typically costs 6 to 20 Data Credits plus an Action.
• No self-serve tier reaches 1M lookups a month. The largest is 200,000 Actions and 50,000 Data Credits.
• Clay MCP reaches its data providers and your team's workflows from ChatGPT, Claude and Codex, but the scoring logic still lives in your tables (Clay MCP guide, October 2026).

Best for: RevOps and GTM engineers who want to design the scoring model themselves.

Pricing: Free $0 (100 Data Credits, 500 Actions a month). Launch from $185 a month, or $167 billed yearly. Growth from $495 a month, or $446 billed yearly (Clay pricing, September 2026).

2. Apollo: best for built-in scores on a prospecting database

Apollo scores records inside the product where you also search them. Its pricing page lists AI Lead Scoring and unlimited lead scoring on Professional and Organization, and a limit of 2 lead scores on Free and Basic (Apollo pricing, October 2026).

The score sits next to the search filters and the contact data, so a rep sees fit and contacts on one screen. The scoring options are configured in the app, not in code.

Apollo has an official MCP server and API access on every plan (Apollo docs, September 2026). The score is a search and workflow feature, so check that your use case can read it through the API before you commit.

Pros

• Scoring and the contact database live in one tool.
• AI Lead Scoring on Professional and Organization.
• Official MCP server on any plan, Free included.
• Enrichment endpoints allow 1,000 requests a minute on paid plans (Apollo rate limits, September 2026).

Cons

• Seat-based credits. A work email costs 1 credit and a phone number 8, so 1M lookups needs hundreds of seats.
• Free and Basic allow 2 lead scores. Unlimited lead scoring needs Professional or Organization (Apollo pricing, October 2026).
• Per-endpoint daily caps on general endpoints, such as 2,000 a day on Basic and Professional.

Best for: sales teams that want a score on the same screen as the prospect list.

Pricing: Free $0 with 75 credits a month. Basic $65 a seat a month, or $49 billed yearly. Professional $99, or $79 billed yearly. Organization $149, or $119 billed yearly, minimum 3 seats (Apollo pricing, September 2026).

3. LeadOcean: best for scoring by API or agent on filtered data

LeadOcean has no scoring engine, and we say so. It is the data layer: 693M people, 67M companies and 34 company filters, all reachable by API and by 13 MCP tools. You write the score, or let an agent write it, against fields LeadOcean returns.

The useful part for ICP work is free sizing. GET /v1/companies/count and the MCP tool leadocean_count_companies return an exact company total with breakdowns by industry, headcount band, HQ country, HQ state and NAICS, at no record cost. You can test five versions of an ICP before you spend a record.

For fit checks on one account, the ICP Qualifier skill compares a company with your criteria and returns Fit, Partial or No fit. The rule is fixed: no Miss and at least two Match is Fit. It is a rules check, not a learned model.

Pros

• Free counts. Size an ICP and test variants without spending records.
• POST /v1/companies/enrich returns industry, headcount range, HQ country, funding and site technologies for a domain.
• Hosted MCP server, so Claude or ChatGPT can run the scoring loop.
• Flat price: Agency is $497 a month with 200 requests a second, and paid plans run on a fair-use pace, not credits.

Cons

• No built-in score, no model, no UI that ranks accounts for you.
• No rep workspace, sequencer, dialer, CRM or Chrome extension. The app has an Exports page for CSV.
• A missing field comes back empty, not as a zero. You decide how your score treats it.
• Intent and engagement signals are not part of the data.

Best for: developers and GTM engineers who score in code, in a warehouse or with an agent, and want the data cheap at volume.

Pricing: Free $0 (1,000 records for life, no card, 5 requests a second). Solo $97 a month. Agency $497 a month. Platform $1,997 a month (LeadOcean pricing, October 2026).

4. HubSpot: best for fit and engagement scores inside the CRM

HubSpot builds scores on records already in your CRM. You can make engagement scores, fit scores or combined scores for contacts and companies, and combined scores for deals (HubSpot Knowledge Base, October 2026).

Scores come from rules in score groups, with a point limit per group and per score. Contact fit and engagement scores built with AI need Marketing Hub Enterprise. The result is a property you can use in segments, workflows and reports, which is where HubSpot wins.

HubSpot scores what you store. If job title and company size are empty, the score is empty too. Pair it with an enrichment source, as in setting up a fit score in HubSpot.

Pros

• Score is a native property, so routing and workflows use it directly.
• Fit and engagement scores can be separate or combined.
• Several scores per object, for example one per region or team.
• A remote MCP server with read and write access to CRM records (HubSpot MCP, October 2026).
• Company scores work with Marketing Hub or Sales Hub.

Cons

• Contact scores need Marketing Hub Professional or Enterprise, which is the expensive end of HubSpot.
• No data of its own to score on. Empty properties score zero.
• Pricing is per marketing contact and seat, with a required one-time onboarding fee on Professional (HubSpot pricing, October 2026).
• API calls on Professional are capped at 190 per 10 seconds per app and 625,000 a day per account (HubSpot usage guidelines, October 2026).

Best for: teams whose pipeline already lives in HubSpot and who want the score to drive workflows.

Pricing: Scoring needs Marketing Hub or Sales Hub Professional or Enterprise (HubSpot Knowledge Base, October 2026). Marketing Hub prices by marketing contacts and seats (HubSpot pricing, October 2026).

5. LeadMagic: best for enrichment that feeds your own scoring

LeadMagic is a data and enrichment API, not a scoring engine. It publishes an ICP Scoring agent skill that guides a model through a weighted scorecard across firmographic, technographic, behavioral and intent dimensions (LeadMagic GTM skills, October 2026).

The skill is a method, not a service. It tells an agent how to build the scorecard, and it names LeadMagic's Company Search and Technographics APIs as optional data inputs. The model, weights and thresholds are yours.

LeadMagic runs a hosted MCP server with OAuth sign-in. Email Finder is capped at 600 requests a minute, and most other endpoints at 300 (LeadMagic docs, September 2026).

Pros

• A clear scorecard method with negative personas and tiering rules.
• Fits well inside Clay tables, where LeadMagic is a common data source.
• People and company search in the app spend no credits on paid plans.
• Failed email lookups are free.

Cons

• No score is computed for you. The skill produces a specification.
• No free plan and no trial credits. It starts at $99 a month.
• Self-serve plans stop at 100,000 credits a month, and top-up prices are not published.
• Search filter counts are not stated in the docs we read.

Best for: agent and Clay users who want a scoring method plus a data source in one vendor.

Pricing: Essential $99 a month for 5,000 credits, Growth $249 for 20,000, Professional $499 for 50,000, Ultimate $849 for 100,000. Billed yearly, Essential is $990 a year ($83 a month) (LeadMagic pricing, September 2026).

6. 6sense: best for predictive account scoring at enterprise scale

6sense scores accounts by buying stage and fit using its own intent and engagement data. It is the only tool here built around predictive account scoring for ABM, and it is priced like it.

The API is gated by package. Lead Scoring needs the Advanced package, People Enrichment is an add-on, and your CSM turns APIs on. The limit is 100 requests a minute (6sense API docs, October 2026).

6sense prints no price we could read. Vendr reports a median of $62,440 a year, with contracts from $11,376 to $176,809 (Vendr, February 2026). For the full breakdown, see 6sense pricing.

Pros

• Scoring built on intent and engagement data you cannot get from firmographics.
• Account-level view across a buying committee.
• Fits a large ABM program with a dedicated owner.

Cons

• No public price, annual contracts, and credits that do not roll over.
• Scoring and API access are behind package gates.
• Heavy for a team that only needs an ICP fit ranking.
• No MCP server appears in its API docs, and the general API limit is 100 requests a minute (6sense API docs, October 2026).

Best for: enterprise ABM teams that already budget for intent data.

Pricing: No public price. Vendr reports a median of $62,440 a year (Vendr, February 2026).

Comparison table

How to choose

• You want to design the model yourself: Clay. Formulas and AI columns give you full control.
• You want a score next to the prospect list: Apollo, on Professional or above for unlimited scores.
• You score in code or with an agent, at volume: LeadOcean. Free counts, flat price, 13 MCP tools. Write the score yourself.
• Your pipeline is in HubSpot: HubSpot, and fill its properties first.
• You build scorecards with an agent and want one vendor for data: LeadMagic.
• You run enterprise ABM with intent data: 6sense.

Verdict

For a team that wants a built-in score, Apollo puts it next to the prospect list and HubSpot is the best fit when the CRM drives routing. For flexibility, Clay wins. For API and agent buyers who score at volume, LeadOcean is the cheapest way to get the fields. It has free counts to size the ICP and flat pricing, but you write the score. 6sense wins only where intent data and an enterprise budget already exist. You can also combine two: a data source for the fields and a tool for the score.

FAQ