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 45 → 51 of 51
1 category · Named, not rankedMails.so
4Judge labels
0First choices
4Negative labels
4 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, 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. Mails.so was named 2 times in Email verification, where ZeroBounce led with 42%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business56 of 56
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Mid-market63 of 65
0%2 labels
under the label threshold
Enterprisenot named
0%
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 Mails.so 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email verification | GTM data and infrastructure | 0% | 63 of 65 | 100% | 2 | under 10 labels · led by ZeroBounce at 42% | =heldSince September 2026: 0% → 0%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Mails.so held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Email verification · 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 44 → 60 of 61
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email verification | 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 44 → 63 of 65 |
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 Mails.so 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 Mails.so 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 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 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
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative0 labelsNone
Budget-constrained0 labelsNone
Scale-constrained0 labelsNone
Negative4 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.
No positive label carried a quote.
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.
“mails.so – scam / dysfunction complaints ... "I strongly advise against using this service."” Muse Glimmer 30B · Email verification · negative prompt · hard negative
“Several negative reviews citing dysfunctional service” MiniMax M2.5 · Email verification · negative prompt · hard negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Mails.so, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mails.so was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Mails.so, over the 4 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Mails.so 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 Mails.so. 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 4 of the 4 answers that named Mails.so and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
trustpilot.com4
capterra.com3
clearout.io3
hunter.io3
snov.io3
tomba.io3
usebouncer.com3
allegrow.co2
pcrisk.com2
prospeo.io2
Twenty-eight of the twenty-eight domain citations in answers naming Mails.so came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on mails.so
170
subdomains included
Content
71
counted in the table below
Documentation
6
Product · Integration
0 · 65
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 41 | 0 | 2024-01-01 | Email verification | |
| Glossary or explainer | 25 | 0 | 2024-01-01 | Email verification | |
| Comparison | 4 | 0 | 2024-01-01 | ||
| Template or tool | 1 | 0 | 2024-01-01 |
Most recent
- 2024-01-01Compare comparison
- 2024-01-01Glossary glossary or explainer
- 2024-01-01Neverbounce comparison
- 2024-01-01Emailable comparison
- 2024-01-01Zerobounce comparison
- 2024-01-01Preventing fake email sign ups blog
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page mails.so 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. Read September 29, 2026.
Names read as Mails.so
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Mails.so; a claim can dispute any of them.
mails.so 2
Follow Mails.so
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
Mails.so is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Mails.so is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Unbeatably simple email validation
- For
- If you're running a newsletter, an e-commerce, a SaaS, or marketing campaigns, mails.so is for you.
- Price stated
- Get started with 90% off your first month mails.so
- Starting price
- 4.80€ mails.so
- Free plan or trial
- Get started for free Includes 50 free credits mails.so
- Certifications
- GDPR Compliant
- Not stated on the pages read
- Integrations, hosting, customers
What Mails.so's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: mails.so, mails.so/integrations. 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 Mails.so'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 Mails.so, 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 Mails.so by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Mails.so 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 Mails.so, 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.