ZapBounce vs Hunter
Hunter published the benchmark this whole category should be read against. On 3 November 2025 they tested 15 verifiers on 3,000 real business addresses, published the method, and printed their own score of 70.00% alongside everyone else's. Our entire argument about denominators rests on their document, and it would be strange to write this page without saying so first.
| ZapBounce | Hunter | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy reporting | Coverage stated: the share of your list with a definite verdict | 70.00% in their own published benchmark |
| 1,000 addresses | $5 | Half a credit per verification |
| 10,000 addresses | $25 | Plans from $49 to $299 a month |
| 100,000 addresses | $139 | Not listed as a verification tier |
| Free tier | 100 a month, no card | 50 credits a month |
| Credit expiry | Never | Credits expire after 12 months |
| Billed for unknowns | No | No |
Hunter figures read from their own pricing page in September 2026.
How Hunter prices it
Subscription only: plans from $49 to $299 a month, with each verification at half a credit and credits usable for 12 months. Hunter doesn't count unknown results against the balance. ZapBounce keeps that rule, adds duplicates to it, and sells credits by the pack with no expiry: $25 for 10,000 and $139 for 100,000.
Why teams pick ZapBounce over Hunter
What changes when your list runs through ZapBounce instead.
The short version
- Verification is the whole product, priced per address: $5 for 1,000 and $139 for 100,000, pay as you go or on a monthly plan.
- Credits never expire. Hunter credits expire after twelve months.
- 100 free checks every month with no card, plus 100 more on signup.
- Unknowns and duplicates are never billed, and both rules are printed on our pricing page.
- Coverage reported on every list, so the unresolved share is counted rather than dropped from the denominator.
Moving off Hunter
Verification sits inside a finder subscription. Each check costs half a credit, so teams that only verify end up paying for a plan built around finding addresses. Credits also lapse after 12 months, which hurts anyone who cleans a list a few times a year.
Nothing to migrate if you only used the verifier: export the list, upload the file, and every row comes back with one of four results and three flags. If you prospect with Hunter, keep the finder and move only the verification.
The hard addresses, and how they come back
Questions people ask about Hunter
Hunter's benchmark scored them at 70%. Is that bad?
It is the most useful number in this category, which is a different thing. Across 15 verifiers measured the same way, the top ten landed between 57.6% and 70.0%. The vendors printing 99.9% are measuring only the addresses they managed to resolve, and the gap between those two figures is the whole story.
Does a verifier replace Hunter?
It replaces the verification half. Keep Hunter for finding if you use it, and send the checking to ZapBounce at $5 for 1,000. The two products overlap on verdicts and nowhere else.
What does half a credit per verification work out at?
It depends which plan the credits came from, since they run from $49 to $299 a month, and the credits expire after twelve months either way. If verification is the only thing you use, work out your effective per-address rate and compare it to a straight $5 for 1,000.
Is ZapBounce cheaper than Hunter?
At 100,000 addresses we list $139 and they list Not listed as a verification tier. Compare the per-address rate rather than the headline, and check what each side does with unknowns: ours are never billed.
Can I test both before deciding?
Yes, and you should. Run the same sample of a few thousand addresses through each and compare how many came back unresolved. That difference matters more than either accuracy claim.
Read Hunter's benchmark before you believe any single accuracy figure, then judge every vendor on coverage and accuracy together.
Run the same sample through us and Hunter
100 free checks a month, no card, and the unknowns come back labeled.