Validity · 1 category · RankedValidity Everest
92Judge labels
24First choices
24Negative labels
14 / 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.
Best standing
45% in Email deliverability for enterprise buyers
Rank 8 of 110 in the mid-market standingcriticized challenger
1 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 26% of its 27 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Validity Everest →By buyer segmentAn enterprise product: leader at enterprise, not named at small business.
Small business114 of 114
0%18 labels
criticized challenger
Mid-market8 of 110
3%27 labels
criticized challenger
Enterprise1 of 93
45%47 labels
endorsed leader
In email deliverability · 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 Validity Everest 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 deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 3% | 8 of 110 | 26% | 27 | criticized challenger |
Movement
This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Validity Everest yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.
By model
How each model treated Validity Everest 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 Validity Everest 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 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 2 | 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
Direct18 labels12
Paraphrase22 labels9
Comparative25 labels8not counted in share
Budget-constrained8 labels2
Scale-constrained8 labels1
Negative11 labels3not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative92 labels in all, every segment counted; 24 of the 35 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.
“The gold standard for larger mid-market and enterprise brands. Extremely deep seed-testing network and comprehensive reputation monitoring, though highly priced.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email deliverability · scale prompt · first choice
“My default pick: Validity Everest” GPT-6 Luna · Email deliverability · direct prompt · first choice
“Everest is the largest and most robust platform in the space... generally cost-prohibitive for SMBs.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email deliverability · comparative prompt · alternative
“Enterprise-grade deliverability monitoring | Large enterprises needing detailed analytics” Kimi K2 · Email deliverability · 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.
“its pricing often starts at $20,000 to $65,000/year, making it massive overkill and too expensive for most mid-sized operations” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email deliverability · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“enterprise suites like *Validity Everest* (which can cost upward of $15,000/year) to be too complex and cost-prohibitive” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email deliverability · direct prompt · soft negative
“The gold standard for enterprise, but likely overkill for mid-sized companies on both features and budget.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email deliverability · paraphrase prompt · soft negative
“Not recommended for most mid-market companies — it's priced and designed for enterprise scale.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email deliverability · direct prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Validity Everest, over the 92 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Validity Everest was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Validity Everest, over the 92 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Validity Everest 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 Validity Everest. 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 88 of the 92 answers that named Validity Everest and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
instantly.ai41
mailtrap.io37
guideflow.com36
amplemarket.com34
salesdorado.com34
inboxarmy.com32
saleshandy.com31
sender.net29
prospeo.io28
mailreach.co26
328 of the 328 domain citations in answers naming Validity Everest came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
validity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Validity Everest takes 3% of first choices and GlockApps takes 34%.ShowHide
Search and answers
validity.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Validity Everest takes 3% of first choices and GlockApps takes 34%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “email deliverability tool”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best email deliverability tool”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 140 a month (“validity everest”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 0 a month
- Its company's site
- validity.com shared with Validity's other products; the figures are the site's
- Organic visits to its site
- about 24,467 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 3,010 · 182 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 5,887
- Paid Google search
- 2 searches its ads show for, about 20 clicks and $264 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
3%
rank 8 of 110 in email deliverability
Segment leader
34%
GlockApps
- First choices
- 24 across its categories
- Named in
- 92 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 88 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.
Names read as Validity Everest
What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Validity Everest; a claim can dispute any of them.
Validity 3Validity (Everest) 3Validity Everest (formerly Return Path) 2Validity (InboxReady) 1
Follow Validity Everest
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
Validity is the company behind Validity Everest.ShowHide
The company
Validity is the company behind Validity Everest.
ShowHideOn record
Company records- Also from Validity
- Validity Engage
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 Validity Everest'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 Validity Everest, 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 Validity Everest by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Validity Everest 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 Validity Everest, 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.