ZapBounce vs Xverify
Xverify refuses to cache results. Every request is a fresh lookup, which they state on their own site as the reason for their accuracy. It is also part of why they cost $400 at a hundred thousand, where ZapBounce charges $139. How much that trade is worth depends on where your bad addresses come from.
| ZapBounce | Xverify | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy reporting | Coverage stated: the share of your list with a definite verdict | 98%, in their words, across the major domains |
| 1,000 addresses | $5 | $10 |
| 10,000 addresses | $25 | $70 |
| 100,000 addresses | $139 | $400 |
| Free tier | 100 a month, no card | 100 verifications, one-time |
| Credit expiry | Never | Not stated anywhere we could find |
| Billed for unknowns | No | No |
Xverify figures read from their own pricing page in September 2026.
How Xverify prices it
A flat ladder from $5 for five hundred to $2,500 for two and a half million, with $10 at a thousand, $70 at ten thousand and $400 at a hundred thousand. No minimum and no setup fee. The rate reflects a real decision: refusing to cache means every check costs them something, and the price says so.
Why teams pick ZapBounce over Xverify
What changes when your list runs through ZapBounce instead.
The short version
- Lower at every tier: $5 against $10 for 1,000, $25 against $70 for 10,000, and $139 against $400 for 100,000.
- 100 free credits every month, recurring, against their one-time 100.
- Credits never expire. Xverify's expiry terms are not stated on their public pages.
- Coverage reported next to the verdicts rather than a single 98% figure.
- Our own SMTP check on port 25, closed before DATA, with the server's literal reply code and a checked_at time on every row.
Moving off Xverify
Price at volume, once the job turns out to be a list rather than a form. At a hundred thousand addresses they are $400, which is what a no-caching policy costs to run and roughly three times the price-led tier of this category.
The bulk half moves in an afternoon. The form half does not: real-time validation at capture is a live dependency, and swapping it means standing a replacement up beside it, watching both, then removing the old one. A gap in that cutover costs you leads you paid for.
The hard addresses, and how they come back
Questions people ask about Xverify
Is real-time validation different from bulk verification?
In timing and economics, yes. In protocol, no. The same SMTP conversation happens either way, and the same domains refuse to answer. What changes is that a real-time check has a user waiting, so it cannot retry a greylisted server the way a batch job can.
How fresh does a verification result need to be?
It depends on where the list came from. Mailboxes close over time, so a verdict describes the moment the server answered. Xverify runs the lookup live every time. ZapBounce stamps each result with checked_at, so you can re-check anything older than your own threshold.
We have both problems, a form and a big list. Now what?
Then you need both behaviors and possibly one tool that does them. Ask each vendor about the real-time path and the bulk path separately, because plenty do one well and the other as an afterthought.
Is ZapBounce cheaper than Xverify?
At 100,000 addresses we list $139 and they list $400. 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.
Work out where your bad addresses arrive. A form and a purchased list are different problems and they are not solved by the same purchase.
Run the same sample through us and Xverify
100 free checks a month, no card, and the unknowns come back labeled.