GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › BillionVerify · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

BillionVerify

13Judge labels

3First choices

0Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. BillionVerify was named 6 times in Email verification, where ZeroBounce led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business9 of 48

under the label threshold

Mid-market16 of 53

under the label threshold

Enterprise10 of 48

under the label threshold

In email verification · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named BillionVerify for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Email verification	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	16 of 53	0%	6	under 10 labels · led by ZeroBounce at 29%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for BillionVerify yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated BillionVerify across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	1	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	1	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labels3

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Accuracy: 99.9% (industry-leading) ... 25-33% cheaper than competitors” Mistral Small · Email verification · comparative prompt · first choice

“BillionVerify claims 99.9% accuracy at $0.001/email, making it the price leader if the accuracy holds up.” MiniMax M2.5 · Email verification · budget prompt · alternative

“highly accurate competitors (such as BillionVerify, DeBounce, or Reoon) charge between $10 to $15” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email verification · negative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as BillionVerify, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and BillionVerify was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce11 of 131Not in the top three

NeverBounce8 of 130Not in the top three

DeBounce7 of 131Not in the top three

Hunter7 of 131Not in the top three

Clearout7 of 130Not in the top three

Kickbox7 of 130Not in the top three

Bouncer6 of 132Not in the top three

EmailListVerify5 of 130Not in the top three

Emailable5 of 130Not in the top three

Snov.io5 of 130Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when BillionVerify's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as BillionVerify, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at billionverify.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.