Compare
Native HubSpot Clone vs DupliCat: Which Do You Need?
What native clone does well
- Works for occasional one-off duplication across contacts, companies, deals, tickets, and more
- Available out of the box with no additional install
- Covers most object types with association selection in the clone panel
- Sufficient when manual field cleanup after each clone is acceptable
Where native clone stops working
- Unique fields (email, domain) are cleared on every clone. Someone fills them in manually, every time
- No saved templates: each operator makes their own choices, and those choices drift over time
- Association behavior isn't always predictable across object types without prior validation
- Volume amplifies every manual step: 3 clones a week is 150 manual cleanups a year
- Workflow automation that needs clone logic has no native action to call
What DupliCat adds
- Saved templates with configured defaults: same result every run, regardless of who initiates it
- Explicit association copying: choose which association types carry over, per run
- Workflow action: automate clone logic from HubSpot Workflows when triggers should drive record creation
- Batch support: 1 to 10 duplicates per run from the record card
- Activity, quote, and custom object support with documented field-level boundaries
Not a fit for DupliCat
- You clone records once or twice a year and manual cleanup is fine
- You need deep-copy of every related record. DupliCat re-links associations; it does not recursively copy contact or company trees
- Your portal's unique-field requirements make any clone approach require manual handling anyway