Claygent Replacement Pattern in 2026

Clay's Launch tier starts at $167/mo. For teams that only want the Claygent layer (AI web research per row), Scavio at $30/mo plus an LLM step covers the same job. The replacement pattern is well-trodden by 2026; this is the shape that holds up.

What Claygent does

Per-row AI web research inside a Clay table. Prompt format like "Find the 2026 funding round for {company} from recent news." The output goes into a column. The cost is rolled into Clay's Launch ($167/mo) or Growth ($446/mo) tiers plus per-row credit consumption.

What the replacement looks like

Scavio search call per row plus an LLM extraction step. Same input (prompt + row context), same output (typed answer). The orchestration layer is n8n, an Apps Script in Google Sheets, or a custom Python loop.

import os, requests
H = {'x-api-key': os.environ['SCAVIO_API_KEY']}

def research(prompt, company):
    serp = requests.post('https://api.scavio.dev/api/v1/search',
        headers=H, json={'query': f'{company} 2026 funding'}).json()
    snippets = [o.get('snippet', '') for o in serp.get('organic_results', [])[:5]]
    # Pass snippets + prompt to LLM; return extracted answer.
    return llm_extract(prompt, '\n'.join(snippets))

The cost math

1,000 rows enriched: ~3,000 Scavio credits = ~$13. Same job on Clay Launch consumes ~6,000 actions plus the $167/mo seat cost. For pure research workflows, the Scavio + LLM stack is roughly 5-10x cheaper.

What Clay still wins at

• 150-provider data marketplace (verified emails, mobile numbers, social profiles, intent signals).
• CRM auto-sync (Growth tier and above).
• Workflow UI for non-technical RevOps users.
• Pre-built waterfall enrichment templates.

The partial migration

Most teams that move off Claygent keep Clay for the marketplace and CRM sync but move pure-research workloads to Scavio. The combined stack: Clay for verified contact data and CRM, Scavio for live web research, n8n for the orchestration. Total cost typically lands at 30-50% of Clay-only.

Where this falls apart

If your workflow leans heavily on Clay's 150-provider marketplace (waterfall enrichment, intent signals, verified mobile numbers), the replacement is a partial story. Scavio handles the public-web research piece; the marketplace data is Clay-specific and not directly replicable.

The honest tradeoff

Scavio's research output is raw — typed JSON of search snippets. The LLM step you write extracts the answer. Clay's Claygent does both in one call. The DIY version saves money but requires a 50-line orchestration layer.

Decision tree

1. If your team uses Clay primarily for the marketplace, stay on Clay.
2. If your team uses Clay primarily for Claygent (web research), move to Scavio + LLM.
3. If both, do the hybrid: Clay for marketplace, Scavio for research.

What ships in week one

50-line Python script that takes a prompt and a company name and returns the extracted answer. Wire to your spreadsheet (Apps Script) or n8n flow. Run on 100 rows. Compare quality and cost against Clay's Claygent output. Most teams keep the script for pure-research and renegotiate the Clay tier.