Every category where a model named EmailListVerify 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%	7 of 53	10%	20	accepted challenger

Movement

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

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

Paraphrase5 labels1

Comparative16 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained15 labels3

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative49 labels in all, every segment counted; 4 of the 5 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.

“the best choice is usually EmailListVerify if you want the lowest cost per verification” Perplexity Sonar · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice

“For the absolute lowest cost: Choose EmailListVerify at $24 for 10K emails.” Mistral Small · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice

“the budget option on this list and delivers accordingly, with free supplementary tools adding real value” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Email verification · budget prompt · alternative

“Choose Clearout, EmailListVerify, or MillionVerifier if cost is the main constraint.” Perplexity Sonar · Email verification · comparative 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.

“A classic budget option, though some independent audits show lower accuracy than top-tier competitors.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email verification · comparative prompt · soft negative

“EmailListVerify: 93.2% real accuracy (lowest tested)” Kimi K2 · Email verification · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as EmailListVerify, over the 49 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and EmailListVerify was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce42 of 4910Not in the top three

Bouncer41 of 4924Not in the top three

Clearout30 of 491Not in the top three

Hunter29 of 493Not in the top three

NeverBounce27 of 492Not in the top three

Kickbox25 of 492Not in the top three

Emailable24 of 490Not in the top three

DeBounce22 of 491Not in the top three

MillionVerifier16 of 491Not in the top three

MyEmailVerifier9 of 493Not 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 EmailListVerify. 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 6 of the 49 answers that named EmailListVerify and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

emailvendorselection.com6

mailtrap.io6

hunter.io5

usebouncer.com5

clearout.io4

myemailverifier.com4

overloop.com4

zerobounce.net4

bounceko.com3

debounce.com3

Forty-four of the forty-four domain citations in answers naming EmailListVerify came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

emailvendorselection.com/email-verification-tools6

mailtrap.io/blog/email-verification-tools6

hunter.io/email-verification-guide/best-email-verifiers5

usebouncer.com/best-email-verification-tools5

clearout.io/email-verification-tools4

overloop.com/blog/email-verification-guide4

zerobounce.net/4

bounceko.com/blog/best-email-verifiers3

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 EmailListVerify'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 EmailListVerify, 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 emaillistverify.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.