Every category where a model named Bouncer 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	24%	2 of 53	0%	40	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Bouncer 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 Bouncer 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	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	2	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	4	0	0	4
Grok 4.1 Fast	3	3	0	6
Mistral Small	2	2	1	5
DeepSeek V4 Flash	4	2	0	6
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	2	2
Qwen 3.7 Flash	1	1	0	2
Kimi K2	2	2	2	6
GLM 4.7 FlashX	3	1	0	4
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	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

Direct24 labels10

Paraphrase17 labels8

Comparative30 labels15not counted in share

Budget-constrained18 labels9

Scale-constrained11 labels2

Negative14 labels6not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative114 labels in all, every segment counted; 29 of the 50 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.

“Well-regarded alternatives with stronger track records ... include Bouncer, ZeroBounce, Kickbox, and NeverBounce” Kimi K2 · Email verification · negative prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend Bouncer as the best all-around value (great accuracy, flexible non-expiring pricing, 100 free credits to trial)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice

“I'd recommend evaluating Skrapp or Bouncer first, as they balance accuracy, ease of use, and workflow integration” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Email verification · direct prompt · first choice

“Bouncer | Overall Balance | ~$8.00 | 97-99% | No extra charge for unknowns/duplicates; excellent real-time API.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email verification · comparative prompt · first choice

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 Bouncer, over the 114 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Bouncer was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce106 of 11436Compare →

NeverBounce79 of 1143Not in the top three

Hunter69 of 1149Compare →

Clearout57 of 1140Not in the top three

Kickbox55 of 1140Not in the top three

Emailable49 of 1140Not in the top three

EmailListVerify41 of 1141Not in the top three

DeBounce31 of 1142Not in the top three

MillionVerifier28 of 1141Not in the top three

Snov.io15 of 1140Not 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.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Bouncer. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 19 of the 114 answers that named Bouncer and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

usebouncer.com17

zerobounce.net14

hunter.io13

mailtrap.io11

overloop.com11

pipeline.zoominfo.com10

emailvendorselection.com9

learn.g2.com9

cleanlist.ai7

clearout.io7

108 of the 108 domain citations in answers naming Bouncer came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hunter.io/email-verification-guide/best-email-verifiers12

usebouncer.com/best-email-verification-tools12

mailtrap.io/blog/email-verification-tools11

overloop.com/blog/email-verification-guide11

zerobounce.net/11

pipeline.zoominfo.com/marketing/email-verification-tools10

emailvendorselection.com/email-verification-tools9

learn.g2.com/best-email-verification-software9

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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 Bouncer'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 Bouncer, 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 bouncer.io 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.