Every category where a model named Emailable 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%	15 of 53	11%	18	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Direct7 labelsNone

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative29 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained6 labelsNone

Scale-constrained7 labelsNone

Negative8 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative63 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 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 agencies/multi-client: Emailable and NeverBounce — strong multi-client workflows and APIs.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · comparative prompt · alternative

“Emailable: 250 free one-time, then ~$0.003-0.008/email (fastest processing); 97-99% accuracy.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Email verification · budget prompt · alternative

“Best For: Speed, automated list monitoring, and the largest integration library.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email verification · comparative prompt · alternative

“Emailable | 99% | ~$7.60 | Fastest (10K in 2–3 min), 90+ integrations” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · scale 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.

“Avoid: Budget tools like Emailable or MailerCheck” Mistral Small · Email verification · paraphrase prompt · hard negative

“Emailable (bad for B2B corporate lists)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Emailable, over the 63 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Emailable was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce58 of 6317Not in the top three

Bouncer49 of 6321Not in the top three

NeverBounce45 of 633Not in the top three

Clearout44 of 633Not in the top three

Hunter41 of 638Not in the top three

Kickbox39 of 631Not in the top three

EmailListVerify24 of 632Not in the top three

DeBounce18 of 631Not in the top three

MillionVerifier14 of 630Not in the top three

Snov.io13 of 630Not 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 Emailable. 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 10 of the 63 answers that named Emailable and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

zerobounce.net9

clearout.io7

usebouncer.com7

hunter.io6

mailtrap.io6

overloop.com5

emailvendorselection.com4

g2.com4

instantly.ai4

lagrowthmachine.com4

Fifty-six of the fifty-six domain citations in answers naming Emailable came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

clearout.io/email-verification-tools6

hunter.io/email-verification-guide/best-email-verifiers6

mailtrap.io/blog/email-verification-tools6

usebouncer.com/best-email-verification-tools6

zerobounce.net/6

overloop.com/blog/email-verification-guide5

emailvendorselection.com/email-verification-tools4

instantly.ai/blog/2026-email-verification-benchmark-accuracy-scores-for-8-top-tools4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

The company

Emailable.

Website: emailable.com
Headquarters: Montebello, United States
Founded: 2017
Ownership: Part of Cache Ventures

From Wikidata, fetched September 14, 2026. These describe the company, not the product's standing, and a claimed page can dispute any of them. · Wikidata · LinkedIn

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 Emailable'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 Emailable, 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 emailable.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.