GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Hunter Email Verifier · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Hunter Email Verifier

4Judge labels

0First choices

0Negative labels

3 of 12Models named it

1Category

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

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Hunter Email Verifier was named 2 times in Email verification, where ZeroBounce led with 29%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business18 of 48

under the label threshold

Mid-market18 of 53

under the label threshold

Enterprisenot named

No model named it for this buyer.

In email verification · 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 Hunter Email Verifier 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%	18 of 53	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by ZeroBounce at 29%

Movement

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

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

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

Paraphrase1 labelNone

Comparative2 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative4 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Best For: Sales development teams and combined "find-and-verify" workflows.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email verification · comparative prompt · alternative

“Best for sales prospecting: Hunter” GPT-5.4 mini · 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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Hunter Email Verifier, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Hunter Email Verifier was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ZeroBounce4 of 43Not in the top three

NeverBounce3 of 41Not in the top three

Bouncer2 of 40Not in the top three

BriteVerify2 of 40Not in the top three

Emailable2 of 40Not in the top three

Kickbox2 of 40Not in the top three

EmailListVerify1 of 41Not in the top three

MyEmailVerifier1 of 41Not in the top three

Allegrow1 of 40Not in the top three

BounceBan1 of 40Not 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 Hunter Email Verifier. 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 1 of the 4 answers that named Hunter Email Verifier and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bouncecheck.email1

briteverify.com1

developers.neverbounce.com1

help.hunter.ioYour site1

hunter.ioYour site1

tomba.io1

zerobounce.net1

Five of the seven domain citations in answers naming Hunter Email Verifier came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

bouncecheck.email/blog/zerobounce-vs-kickbox1

briteverify.com/resources/FactSheet_BriteVerify.pdf1

developers.neverbounce.com/docs/verifying-an-email1

help.hunter.io/en/articles/12729766-what-is-an-email-verifier-and-why-it-matters1

help.hunter.io/en/articles/15899247-email-verification-faqs1

hunter.io/email-verifier1

tomba.io/blog/briteverify-vs-kickbox1

zerobounce.net/apis/email-validation-api1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

The company

Hunter.io is the company behind Hunter Email Verifier.

Website: hunter.io
Headquarters: United States
Founded: 2015

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 · Crunchbase

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 Hunter Email Verifier'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 Hunter Email Verifier, 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 hunter.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.