Small business=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 10 of 45, unchanged
7 categories · RankedHunter
81Judge labels
2First choices
5Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
7Categories
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
2% in Enrichment for mid-market buyers
Rank 7 of 50 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 0% of its 15 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Hunter →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business10 of 49
0%16 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market7 of 50
2%15 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise50 of 53
0%5 labels
under the label threshold
In enrichment · 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 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data enrichment | GTM data and infrastructure | 2% | 7 of 50 | 0% | 15 | accepted challenger | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Sales intelligence and contact data | Sales | 0% | 10 of 52 | 0% | 9 | under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 73% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Value selling tools | Sales | 0% | 20 of 116 | 0% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by Minoa at 21% | |
| Account-based marketing platforms | Marketing | 0% | 44 of 71 | 0% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by AdRoll ABM at 53% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| B2B intent data providers | Sales | 0% | 58 of 60 | 100% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Apollo.io at 27% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
| Email deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 0% | 63 of 110 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34% | |
| Identity resolution | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 82 of 140 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by Hightouch Adaptive Identity Resolution at 12% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Hunter held within the floor in all seven categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Enrichment · by segment
Mid-market=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 13 → 9 of 48
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
0%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 36 → 43 of 46
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enrichment | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 13 → 7 of 50 |
| Sales intel | 0% | 0% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 10 of 52, unchanged |
| Value selling | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 20 of 116, unchanged |
| ABM | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 44 of 71, unchanged |
| Intent data | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 58 of 60, unchanged |
| Email deliverability | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 63 of 110, unchanged |
| Identity | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 82 of 140, unchanged |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Hunter across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Hunter across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 1 | 1 | 0 | 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
Direct11 labelsNone
Paraphrase8 labelsNone
Comparative13 labelsNone
Budget-constrained39 labels2
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative9 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative81 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.
“Hunter.io for the cheapest email-only option” Muse Glimmer 30B · Enrichment · budget prompt · first choice
“Purpose-built for finding and verifying business email addresses; does not provide phone numbers by design” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Sales intel · comparative prompt · alternative
“Hunter (Best for email-focused teams) - Cheap and reliable for email enrichment specifically” MiniMax M2.5 · Enrichment · budget prompt · alternative
“If you only need email addresses, Hunter.io or Lusha may be the most cost-effective choices.” Mistral Small · Enrichment · 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.
“Both are contact‑focused and don’t provide full topic‑based intent feeds” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Intent data · budget prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Hunter, over the 81 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Hunter was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Hunter, over the 81 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Hunter was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 75 of the 81 answers that named Hunter and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
pipeline.zoominfo.com28
cleanlist.ai26
apollo.io24
clay.com24
prospeo.io21
demandbase.com20
lusha.com20
salesmotion.io20
zapier.com17
amplemarket.com16
216 of the 216 domain citations in answers naming Hunter came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
hunter.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Hunter takes 2% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 73%.ShowHide
Search and answers
hunter.io is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Hunter takes 2% of first choices and Apollo.io takes 73%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “b2b data enrichment tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best b2b data enrichment tool”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 201,000 a month (“hunter”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 280,275 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 152,782 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 7,884 · 1,012 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 12,056
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
2%
rank 7 of 50 in enrichment
Segment leader
73%
Apollo.io
- First choices
- 2 across its categories
- Named in
- 81 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 75 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on hunter.io
3,694
subdomains included
Content
854
counted in the table below
Documentation
254
Product · Integration
2 · 11
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Template or tool | 547 | undated | |||
| Blog | 209 | 12 | 2026-09-28 | ||
| Case study | 46 | 5 | 2026-07-17 | ||
| Podcast or video | 16 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 13 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 8 | undated | |||
| Comparison | 8 | 1 | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Report or ebook | 4 | undated | |||
| Glossary or explainer | 2 | 0 | 2025-05-12 | ||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
Most recent
- 2026-09-28Data provenance for ai agents blog
- 2026-09-24Email infrastructure blog
- 2026-09-16Should you email more than one person per company blog
- 2026-09-0811891855 static vs dynamic lists in hunter leads comparison
- 2026-09-01Llms get email data wrong blog
- 2026-08-2515 ways to find similar leads blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page hunter.io exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Hunter
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Hunter; a claim can dispute any of them.
Hunter.io 14Hunter.io Free 5Hunter.io + Calendly Free 1Lemlist/Hunter.io 1
Follow Hunter
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Hunter.io is the company behind Hunter.ShowHide
The company
Hunter.io is the company behind Hunter.
ShowHideOn record
Wikidata- Website
- hunter.io
- Headquarters
- United States
- Founded
- 2015
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
In its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- the all-in-one email outreach platform to find verified decision makers and turn them into leads
- For
- founders, marketers, sales teams, and product owners
- Price stated
- Pay as you go hunter.io
- Starting price
- 0.00 hunter.io
- Free plan or trial
- 50 free leads/month No credit card No trial hunter.io
- Integrations claimed
- 5000 hunter.io · 5 hunter.io/pricing pages disagree
- Customers named
- CanvaAcquire.com95 ProjectsModgilityVocationsPlanhat CRMLatticeREsimpli
- Not stated on the pages read
- Certifications, hosting
What Hunter's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: hunter.io, hunter.io/pricing, hunter.io/technologies/categories/security, hunter.io/technologies/platformos, hunter.io/customers. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Hunter'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, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Hunter by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Hunter is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Hunter, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.