Is ZeroBounce better than MillionVerifier?

For work addresses, yes, in our test: ZeroBounce confirmed 47 of 50 real addresses and passed no fake as valid, while MillionVerifier confirmed 31 and called most work addresses catch-all. For consumer lists the two were equally accurate, and MillionVerifier is much cheaper.

How much cheaper is MillionVerifier than ZeroBounce?

10,000 checks cost $39 at MillionVerifier and $129 at ZeroBounce. A million cost $449 against $3,199. That is roughly three times cheaper at small volumes and seven times at a million.

What does catch-all mean in email verification?

A catch-all result means the mail server accepted the test without confirming the mailbox, so the verifier cannot say whether the address exists. Sending to catch-all addresses is a gamble on bounces.

How did you test the verifiers?

We used 50 real addresses of pipe0 users who signed in with Google in the last 45 days and 50 fake ones we generated: random mailboxes at Gmail, Outlook, and company domains, and addresses at domains that don't exist. Each verdict was scored against the known answer.

ZeroBounce vs. MillionVerifier: We Tested Both on 100 Known Addresses

Every email verifier says it is 99% accurate. ZeroBounce guarantees 99.6%, MillionVerifier promises "99%+". Neither number tells you what happens on your list, so we built a list where we already knew every answer and asked them.

The test

We took 100 addresses. Fifty were real: pipe0 users who had signed in with Google in the previous 45 days, which proves the mailbox existed recently. Thirty were on company domains and twenty on Gmail. The other fifty were fake, generated for the test with no person behind them: twenty random mailboxes at Gmail and Outlook, twenty at well-known company domains such as stripe.com and atlassian.com, and ten at domains that don't exist.

Every address went to ZeroBounce, MillionVerifier, and, as a third reference, MixRank's verification API. We scored each verdict against the known answer. A "valid" on a real address or an "invalid" on a fake one is right. Passing a fake as valid is the expensive error, because it bounces. Rejecting a real address is the other one, because it is a lead you never contact. Catch-all and unknown count as undetermined, not wrong: the verifier declined to commit.

The results

	ZeroBounce	MillionVerifier	MixRank
Right answers	96 of 100	66 of 100	93 of 100
Real addresses confirmed	47 of 50	31 of 50	47 of 50
Fakes caught	49 of 50	35 of 50	46 of 50
Fakes passed as valid	0	1	0
Real addresses rejected	2	1	3
Undetermined	2	32	4
Median time per check	0.3 s	0.7 s	1.3 s

The headline gap, 96 against 66, hides where it comes from. Both verifiers were perfect on the easy half of the list. All 20 real Gmail addresses came back valid, and all 20 fake Gmail and Outlook mailboxes and all 10 dead domains came back invalid, on both.

Every difference was on work domains.

Where they split

Of the 30 real work addresses, ZeroBounce gave a definite answer on 29. MillionVerifier confirmed 11 and called 18 catch-all. On the 20 fake work addresses, the pattern repeated: ZeroBounce caught 19, MillionVerifier caught 5 and called 13 catch-all.

A catch-all verdict means the company's mail server accepted the test without confirming the mailbox, so the verifier can't tell a real address from a made-up one. Many company domains behave that way, and some verifiers are better than others at seeing through it. In this test, ZeroBounce and MixRank saw through it on almost every domain, and MillionVerifier on about a third.

That matters for what you send. Following MillionVerifier strictly, sending only to its valid results, you would have dropped 19 of the 50 real addresses. Following it loosely, sending to catch-alls too, you would have sent to 14 of the 50 fakes: 14 bounces in 63 sends. ZeroBounce's valid results contained no fakes at all.

MillionVerifier's caution has an upside. It rejected only one real address, the fewest of the three. It isn't making mistakes on work domains, it is declining to answer.

What it costs

MillionVerifier is much cheaper, and it has no subscription.

Checks	ZeroBounce	MillionVerifier
10,000	$129	$39
100,000	$649	$149
1,000,000	$3,199	$449

That is about three times cheaper at 10,000 checks and seven times at a million. MillionVerifier's credits never expire, and it credits back unknown and catch-all results. ZeroBounce charges for catch-alls, and for accounts created after June 1, 2026, its credits expire two years after the last purchase unless you subscribe.

Which one to use

Use MillionVerifier for consumer lists: newsletters, signups, anything that is mostly Gmail and Outlook. It was exactly as accurate as ZeroBounce there, at a fraction of the price.

Use ZeroBounce for work addresses and cold outbound. On a list of company emails, a third of MillionVerifier's answers will be catch-all, and you'll need a second check for those anyway. Paying more per check for an answer is cheaper than a bounced campaign.

If you do both, you don't have to pick. In a pipe0 sheet, both are pipes, so you can run MillionVerifier on consumer rows and ZeroBounce on work rows of the same list.

What this test can't tell you

A hundred addresses is a small sample, and 30 real work addresses decide most of the gap. One real address was rejected by all three verifiers. A sign-in 45 days earlier proves the Google account existed then, not that the address still works, so that one may be our labelling error rather than theirs. Our fake company addresses sit on twenty large domains; your prospects' mail servers will behave differently. Run your own list of known answers before you commit, and see the ZeroBounce review and MillionVerifier review for pricing details and the full scorecard.