Every category where a model named DeBounce 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	4%	8 of 53	12%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for DeBounce 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 DeBounce across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	2	1	0	3
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	1	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	3	0	0	3
Kimi K2	1	0	1	1	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	1	0	2
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	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

Direct5 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative14 labelsNone

Budget-constrained14 labels3

Scale-constrained5 labelsNone

Negative8 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 3 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.

“For most businesses, DeBounce or MyEmailVerifier offer the best balance of cost, accuracy, and features.” MiniMax M2.5 · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice

“DeBounce – Best Overall Value ... one of the cheapest rates available” Kimi K2 · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice

“DeBounce — Best for Bulk List Cleaning ... aggressive bulk pricing while maintaining industry-standard accuracy” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email verification · budget prompt · alternative

“Go with DeBounce if you need a budget-friendly tool that integrates directly into your existing CRM” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email verification · budget 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.

“Best for: Cost-sensitive users (accuracy may vary)” Mistral Small · Email verification · comparative prompt · soft negative

“DeBounce: 94.0% real accuracy” Kimi K2 · Email verification · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as DeBounce, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and DeBounce was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce41 of 4811Not in the top three

NeverBounce32 of 482Not in the top three

Bouncer31 of 4816Not in the top three

Hunter29 of 485Not in the top three

Kickbox29 of 484Not in the top three

Clearout27 of 480Not in the top three

EmailListVerify22 of 481Not in the top three

Emailable18 of 480Not in the top three

MillionVerifier17 of 482Not in the top three

MyEmailVerifier8 of 481Not 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 DeBounce. 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 4 of the 48 answers that named DeBounce and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hunter.io4

clearout.io3

overloop.com3

reddit.com3

usebouncer.com3

zerobounce.net3

cleanlist.ai2

debounce.comYour site2

emailvendorselection.com2

lagrowthmachine.com2

Twenty-five of the twenty-seven domain citations in answers naming DeBounce came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hunter.io/email-verification-guide/best-email-verifiers4

clearout.io/email-verification-tools3

overloop.com/blog/email-verification-guide3

zerobounce.net/3

cleanlist.ai/blog/2026-03-19-best-email-verification-tools2

debounce.com/blog/email-verification-tools2

emailvendorselection.com/email-verification-tools2

mailtrap.io/blog/email-verification-tools2

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as DeBounce

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as DeBounce; a claim can dispute any of them.

Debounce 2

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 DeBounce'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 DeBounce, 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 debounce.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.