Small business▼−2Since September 2026: 4% → 2%, −2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 4% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 10 → 11 of 51
2 categories · RankedMillionVerifier
53Judge labels
6First choices
13Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
2Categories
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
9% in Email verification for mid-market buyers
Rank 3 of 65 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
0 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 30% of its 20 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of MillionVerifier →By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
Small business12 of 56
2%17 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market3 of 65
9%20 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise17 of 52
0%14 labels
criticized challenger
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 MillionVerifier 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 | 9% | 3 of 65 | 30% | 20 | criticized challenger | ▲+8Since September 2026: 0% → 8%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
| Email deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 0% | 70 of 110 | 0% | 1 | under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34% |
Movement
Since September 2026, MillionVerifier held within the floor in all two categories: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · Email verification · by segment
Mid-market▲+8Since September 2026: 0% → 8%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
8%from 0% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 3 pointsRank 47 → 3 of 61
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 43 → 15 of 50
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email verification | 0% | 8% | ▲+8Since September 2026: 0% → 8%, +8 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 47 → 3 of 65 |
| Email deliverability | 0% | 0% | newNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now. | New this edition | Rank 70 of 110, 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 MillionVerifier 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 MillionVerifier 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 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
Direct7 labelsNone
Paraphrase2 labelsNone
Comparative10 labelsNone
Budget-constrained19 labels6
Scale-constrained3 labelsNone
Negative12 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative53 labels in all, every segment counted; 6 of the 6 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.
“Choose MillionVerifier if you have a very large list (e.g., 10k+) to clean at once and want the lowest bulk price.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice
“MillionVerifier – Best Overall Value ... If you need the absolute lowest cost: Go with MillionVerifier” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice
“Start with MillionVerifier – 100 free credits to test, then pay-as-you-go with no expiration” Kimi K2 · Email verification · budget prompt · first choice
“For most budget-conscious companies, I'd start with MillionVerifier for bulk list cleaning.” GPT-6 Luna · Email verification · budget 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.
“MillionVerifier is the one most often singled out with documented false positives and billing complaints — proceed with caution there.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email verification · negative prompt · hard negative
“MillionVerifier and EmailListVerify offer the lowest cost per 10k emails but lack advanced deliverability features” Muse Glimmer 30B · Email verification · budget prompt · soft negative
“Budget/low-cost options like EmailListVerify, MillionVerifier, and DeBounce - Approach with caution” Grok 4.20 · Email verification · negative prompt · soft negative
“Best on a tight budget, with a price of ~$6/10K, but with lower catch-all accuracy.” Llama 4 Maverick · Email verification · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as MillionVerifier, over the 53 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MillionVerifier was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as MillionVerifier, over the 53 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and MillionVerifier 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 MillionVerifier. 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 52 of the 53 answers that named MillionVerifier and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
usebouncer.com36
kickbox.com26
prospeo.io21
overloop.com20
sender.net20
hunter.io19
millionverifier.comYour site16
sparkle.io16
zerobounce.net16
g2.com15
189 of the 205 domain citations in answers naming MillionVerifier came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
millionverifier.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, MillionVerifier takes 9% of first choices and ZeroBounce takes 42%.ShowHide
Search and answers
millionverifier.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, MillionVerifier takes 9% of first choices and ZeroBounce takes 42%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “email verification service”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best email verification service”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 1,900 a month (“millionverifier”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 1 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 1,260 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 298 · 5 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 800
- Paid Google search
- No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
9%
rank 3 of 65 in email verification
Segment leader
42%
ZeroBounce
- First choices
- 6 across its categories
- Named in
- 53 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 52 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 millionverifier.com
53
subdomains included
Content
14
counted in the table below
Documentation
5
Product · Integration
4 · 0
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 13 | 11 | 2026-09-17 | Email verification | |
| Comparison | 1 | 1 | 2026-08-10 | Email verification |
Most recent
- 2026-09-17How Lead Gen Agencies Protect Client Domains with Bulk Email Verification blog
- 2026-09-11Calculating the financial cost of poor list hygiene blog
- 2026-09-04The Ugly Truth About Spam Traps (And What Email Verification Can Actually Fix) blog
- 2026-08-26Data processing agreement archived v 20 july 2026 blog
- 2026-08-25Service providers recipients and subprocessors blog
- 2026-08-10Inbound vs outbound email verification strategic differences comparison
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page millionverifier.com 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.
Follow MillionVerifier
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
MillionVerifier is its own company.ShowHide
The company
MillionVerifier is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- The #1 Email Verification Service
- For
- email marketing
- Price stated
- The Most Comprehensive Email Verification Service from only $39 millionverifier.com
- Starting price
- 39 millionverifier.com
- Free plan or trial
- 100 emails For Free; Free Trial; 100 free credits millionverifier.com
- Integrations claimed
- 40 millionverifier.com
- Certifications
- GDPR CompliantSOC 2 Controls
- Customers named
- TechStartValueB2B
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What MillionVerifier's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: millionverifier.com, millionverifier.com/solutions. 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 MillionVerifier'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 MillionVerifier, 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 MillionVerifier by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where MillionVerifier 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 MillionVerifier, 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.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where MillionVerifier is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where MillionVerifier is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideMillionVerifier is among the products AI models recommend first in Email verification this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.