GTM AI Index
Index GTM data and infrastructure Email verification › ZeroBounce vs DeBounce
Email verification · September 2026 Edition

ZeroBounce vs DeBounce

Six of twelve models named ZeroBounce first on the direct prompt; zero named DeBounce. ZeroBounce was named by twelve of the twelve models and DeBounce by nine and ZeroBounce carries 53 labels and DeBounce 17, so the shares are not directly comparable.

ZeroBounce

accepted challenger

Named in three categories this edition.

DeBounce

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share29%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate8%12%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#7A position in a field of 11; printed, not drawn.
Labels5317A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, ZeroBounce reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Hunter was named alongside these two in nine of the twelve direct answers. ZeroBounce vs Bouncer · ZeroBounce vs Hunter · ZeroBounce vs Clearout

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the email verification page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ZeroBounceFirst choices, of twelve modelsDeBounce
Direct60
Paraphrase70
Comparative301 against DeBounce
Budget-constrained122 against ZeroBounce
Scale-constrained10
Negative202 against ZeroBounce · 1 against DeBounce
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Across every category in the September 2026 Edition, ZeroBounce and DeBounce were named in the same answer forty-one times, of the 178 answers naming ZeroBounce and the 48 naming DeBounce. In those answers DeBounce took the first choice two times and ZeroBounce eleven.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where ZeroBounce and DeBounce stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
ZeroBounce DeBounce first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, ZeroBounce on the left and DeBounce on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where ZeroBounce and DeBounce stood in it.

ZeroBounce first, DeBounce not the choice

6 of 12 modelsDeBounce was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniZeroBounce alternatives: Hunter
Grok 4.1 FastHunter, ZeroBounce alternatives: Bouncer, Clearout, Kickbox
Mistral SmallZeroBounce alternatives: Bouncer, Clearout, Hunter, NeverBounce
Qwen 3.7 FlashZeroBounce alternatives: Bouncer, EmailListVerify, Kickbox, MillionVerifier
Kimi K2ZeroBounce alternatives: Bouncer, Clearout, Hunter
MiniMax M2.5ZeroBounce alternatives: Hunter

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Bouncer, Skrapp alternatives: NeverBounce, ZeroBounce
Gemini 3.5 FlashBouncer alternatives: Allegrow, BounceBan, NeverBounce, ZeroBounce
Perplexity SonarBouncer alternatives: Hunter, MillionVerifier, ZeroBounce
DeepSeek V4 FlashBouncer alternatives: Hunter, NeverBounce, ZeroBounce

Neither was named

2 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Llama 4 MaverickClearout, Hunter, Kickbox
GLM 4.7 FlashXClearout alternatives: Hunter, Kickbox

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
ZeroBounce leads by four points.
ZeroBounce7%#3 of 10
DeBounce2%#9 of 10
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
ZeroBounce leads by twenty-five points.
ZeroBounce29%#1 of 11
DeBounce4%#7 of 11
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
ZeroBounce leads by fifty-one points.
ZeroBounce51%#1 of 9
DeBounce0%#– of 9
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about ZeroBounce

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.

“Several providers (ZeroBounce, NeverBounce, Bouncer's monthly credits) expire credits, which punishes infrequent users” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Be Cautious About: Overpriced "Legacy" Providers... ZeroBounce charges up to $129 per 10,000 verifications” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“premium enterprise tools like ZeroBounce charge ~$129 for 10,000 verifications” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“Well-regarded alternatives with stronger track records in recent independent testing include Bouncer, ZeroBounce, Kickbox, and NeverBounce” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · first choice
“ZeroBounce (Best overall balance for mid-market) ... ZeroBounce for robust list hygiene + extras (top G2 pick for mid-market)” Grok 4.1 Fast · direct prompt · first choice
“ZeroBounce — Best Overall for Mid-Market ... Choose ZeroBounce if you want the safest bet with proven mid-market fit” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about DeBounce

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of six in this category shown.

“Best for: Cost-sensitive users (accuracy may vary)” Mistral Small · comparative prompt · soft negative
“DeBounce: 94.0% real accuracy” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most businesses, DeBounce or MyEmailVerifier offer the best balance of cost, accuracy, and features.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“DeBounce – Best Overall Value ... one of the cheapest rates available” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“DeBounce — Best for Bulk List Cleaning ... aggressive bulk pricing while maintaining industry-standard accuracy” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.