Comparison Email Intel vs BounceBan
Email Intel vs BounceBan
Same no-send principle, different transparency posture: BounceBan's algorithms are proprietary, our signals are itemised in the response.
A real-time catch-all verifier using proprietary algorithms, explicitly without sending test emails.
Where the two approaches actually differ
| Dimension | Email Intel | BounceBan |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Public signals only, no test emails. | Proprietary algorithms, no test emails, per BounceBan's published description. |
| Explainability | Per-signal breakdown with observation dates returned in the API response. | Proprietary — the deciding signals are not itemised publicly. |
| Published resolution rate | Not currently published — see the note below on why. | Claims 85–95% resolution, per BounceBan's own published figure. |
| Handling of genuine uncertainty | Returns an explicit 'unknown' with confidence rather than forcing a binary verdict. | Not publicly documented. |
We are not the right answer for everyone.
BounceBan publishes a catch-all resolution rate of 85–95%. We deliberately do not publish a comparable figure right now, because ours is being re-measured against observed delivery outcomes. If a published resolution rate is what you are buying on, they have one and we do not.
Where we fit instead: Teams who want to see why an address was judged the way it was, and who would rather have an explicit 'unknown' than a confident guess.
Why there is no accuracy number on this page.
We do not publish a head-to-head accuracy comparison. Our historical benchmark was withdrawn from marketing use because its labels were third-party probabilistic labels rather than observed delivery outcomes. A replacement measured on real customer bounce outcomes is in progress. Until it reports, we compare on method — which you can verify today — and not on accuracy.
If you are evaluating vendors, the useful question is not whose number is bigger — it is whose number you can reproduce. Ask any vendor, us included, what the ground truth was, who labelled it, and whether the labels came from observed delivery outcomes or from another tool's guess.
Where these facts come from
No-test-email method and 85–95% claimed resolution as published by BounceBan.
docs/COMPETITIVE-ANALYSIS.md, Tier 4 (catch-all specialists).
Spotted something out of date or misrepresented — including if you work at BounceBan? Tell us and we will correct it.
Bring us your catch-all segment.
Send the addresses your current tool marks “risky” or “accept-all” and see what evidence exists for them. No test messages are sent, to anyone.
Review my catch-alls ↗