GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Findymail · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Findymail

13Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

9 of 12Models named it

2Categories

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

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Findymail was named 4 times in CRM data quality and 1 other category, where Insycle led with 34%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business36 of 115

under the label threshold

Mid-market50 of 104

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In crm data quality · 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 Findymail 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
CRM data quality and deduplication	Revenue operations	0%	50 of 104	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by Insycle at 34%
Data enrichment	GTM data and infrastructure	0%	45 of 56	0%	1	under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 70%

Movement

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

Model	First choice	Mention	Negative	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	0	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative5 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 1 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.

“Tools that pull from multiple databases (like Cleanlist or Findymail)” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CRM data quality · negative 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.

“Custom-priced (often $15K+/yr) tools suited to bigger budgets” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CRM data quality · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

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

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Apollo.io8 of 133Not in the top three

Hunter7 of 130Not in the top three

Cleanlist6 of 132Not in the top three

ZeroBounce6 of 131Not in the top three

NeverBounce6 of 130Not in the top three

Clay5 of 130Not in the top three

ZoomInfo5 of 130Not in the top three

Insycle4 of 133Not in the top three

Clearout4 of 130Not in the top three

DemandTools4 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.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Findymail. 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 2 of the 13 answers that named Findymail and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hunter.io2

lagrowthmachine.com2

snov.io2

usebouncer.com2

buzzlead.io1

clearout.io1

debounce.com1

icypeas.com1

leadmagic.io1

mailgenius.com1

Fourteen of the fourteen domain citations in answers naming Findymail came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hunter.io/email-verification-guide/best-email-verifiers2

buzzlead.io/best/best-email-verification-tools1

clearout.io/email-verification-tools1

debounce.com/blog/email-verification-tools1

icypeas.com/blog/email-verification-services1

lagrowthmachine.com/best-email-verification-services-20261

lagrowthmachine.com/email-verification-software-20261

leadmagic.io/blog/best-email-verification-tools1

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 Findymail'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 Findymail, 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 findymail.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.