I've added companies to a new Clay table using company size "51-200". When I then enrich these exact companies in Clay, it shows that most of them have 201-500 employees. Any ideas why this happens?
The difference in company size data occurs because when you enrich companies in Clay, the system pulls fresh data from various data providers like Apollo.io, Clearbit, and Datagma.These providers maintain their own databases with potentially more up-to-date information about company sizes. The initial size you entered manually (51-200) might be outdated, while the enrichment process fetches the current employee count data from these providers, showing 201-500 employees.To ensure you have the most accurate information, it's recommended to rely on the enriched data as it comes directly from established data providers who regularly update their databases. Sources: Enrich Company with Datagma Enrich Company with Apollo.io Enrich Company with Clearbit
So all data in the company search is completely outdated? Using the 51-200 filter and then enriching showed that more than 90% of the companies found did not actually match the filters. To me it seems more likely this is a serious bug.
Looks like you're still looking for help. We're escalating this over to our support team and someone should be in touch soon. In the meantime, feel free to include any other information that may be helpful in solving your issue!
Hey Jakob! Thanks for reaching out— Do you mind sending the link to the table so we can take a look? https://downloads.intercomcdn.com/i/o/1171717996/ac7729f84b426e1d0358af02/image.png?expires=1736789400&signature=37c364f4fa2a07f5df4bed3b256d8196c778fb6a3b50b60a5beaefd121dcf39a&req=dSEgF85%2FmohWX%2FMW1HO4zYTywS37Dp4S2BKsam%2FhVPtDNQ%3D%3D%0A I'll test this out but can also check that our data providers are working correctly as well, reporting to them any incongruencies we find such as this example.
Hey Jakob, thanks for reaching out and sorry to hear this didn't work as anticiapted. After testing the filter on my end, it seems to align with the numbers you provided. I’m not sure which specific filter you had in place, but please note that this data point is set by the company itself and can be changed at any time. Additionally, this "Size" data point doesn’t take into account the number of related people or employees the company has on LinkedIn, it's a manually attributed range set by the company. Hope this answers your question, please let me know how else I can assist here! :) https://downloads.intercomcdn.com/i/o/w28k1kwz/1333199163/986826b87481b73a8dc267d7a724/CleanShot+2025-01-13+at+13_21_05%402x.png?expires=1736794800&signature=96c96582b318fa13f50a6f80f7c7cd9257c966f98e7b1dda6e08b09617991ecb&req=dSMkFch3lIBZWvMW1HO4zQjpiN0O%2Bv8mRq9ybLAum8zY2jH5Y8xK007pLEYS%0AoX16%0A
No, as you can see in the links provided, I did a Person search using "51-200" for company size. The enrichment then revealed that in fact 90%+ of the people returned by the search work at companies that have 201-500 employees. This is clearly a bug.
To make this crystal clear, please have a look at the image below which is from this table https://app.clay.com/workspaces/9116/tables/t_YkNy2QcvHRmn/views/gv_mjKKACQctjGC Size filter: 51-200 returns a list of companies that almost exclusively have 201-500 employees
I replicated the issue in this table: https://app.clay.com/workspaces/9116/tables/t_RM42qfZ6uTzh/views/gv_j6nCF2XNeR6y
Got it, apologies for the oversight Jakob. I've escalated this to our engineering team to help look into it. We'll follow up here as soon as we know more. We appreciate your patience here. In the meantime a workaround would be building out this list starting from the "Find Companies" search which would retrieve this data accurately at correct at the company level. Then once this list of companies is built, using our "Find People at these companies" search to pull contacts in attributed to these companies and data points found initially. Hope that is helpful! Apologies for the inconvenience in the meantime.
Any update on this?
Good news! Happy to report that we heard back from the team and this issue should be fixed. Thank you for your patience as we worked on it. Please let us know if the problem has been resolved on your end, or if you still have trouble.
thanks, we just tested it and all looked good now
I'm really glad to hear that! Thank you so much for your patience. Please let us know if you have any other questions.
.png){kind=logo}
