AgentsVerifySIGN IN
MENU

Independent comparison · 608 addresses

What the numbers actually say.

Two verification systems checked the same addresses. The headline is 83.4% agreement; the useful story is how the remaining decisions move.

Saved MillionVerifier referenceAgentsVerify bulk rerun11-09-2026

The leaderboard

The result at a glance

Conclusive agreement

438 / 52583.4% of the rows where MillionVerifier had a hard verdict

Conclusive disagreement

8716.6% of those same 525 rows

AgentsVerify valid

82 vs 78Four more valid outcomes overall

AV invalid / MV valid

0No direct hard-negative conflict in this sample

How to read this

Hard verdicts are the point.

For this comparison, we treat a hard valid or invalid result as a provider decision made only after its checks cross the provider's confidence threshold. Catch-all and unknown stay outside that hard yes/no. This page reports the results from one 608-address comparison.

Same 608 addresses

A wider answer without pretending certainty

MillionVerifier calls more rows invalid. AgentsVerify turns more rows into a useful outcome instead of stopping at an unresolved answer.

Final result counts
OutcomeMillionVerifierAgentsVerifyAV − MVPlain reading
Valid7882+4AgentsVerify has the larger valid bucket.
Invalid384355−29MillionVerifier uses a hard invalid verdict more often.
Catch-all63100+37AgentsVerify keeps more risky domains out of a hard yes/no.
Unknown8371−12AgentsVerify resolves more rows in this run.
Total608608—Same input set

The extra catch-all outcomes are deliberate: a domain that accepts random recipients should not be presented as a clean, hard-valid mailbox.

The 16.6% disagreement

Most of it is not valid versus invalid.

There are 87 disagreements among the 525 rows where MillionVerifier returned a conclusive label. The dominant pattern is MV saying invalid while AgentsVerify stays at unknown or catch-all.

Every conclusive-label disagreement
MillionVerifierAgentsVerifyRowsShareWhat it means
invalidunknown5158.6%AgentsVerify did not force a hard negative.
invalidcatch-all3034.5%AgentsVerify treated the domain as risky instead.
invalidvalid11.1%One vendor disagreement; the underlying evidence is retained.Reviewed separately: public evidence and repeated SMTP controls support the AgentsVerify-valid result.
validcatch-all33.4%AgentsVerify downgraded three vendor-valid rows to risky.
validunknown11.1%AgentsVerify kept one row unresolved.
catch-allunknown11.1%One catch-all comparison remained unresolved.
Total8716.6%Of 525 conclusive MV comparisons

The useful asymmetry

Seven recovered positives versus three downgrades.

Of the 83 addresses that MillionVerifier left unknown, AgentsVerify returned 7 valid, 53 invalid, 5 catch-all and 18 unknown. On the other side, three MillionVerifier-valid addresses became catch-all with AgentsVerify—not invalid.

Where MillionVerifier said unknown
AgentsVerifyRowsReading
valid7The key recovery group: AgentsVerify found a hard positive where MV stayed unknown.
invalid53AgentsVerify found a hard negative where MV stayed unknown.
catch-all5AgentsVerify identified a risky domain.
unknown18Both systems left the result unresolved.
Total83MV unknown bucket

The honest conclusion

More recovery, still conservative.

01

We do not call MV-valid rows invalid.

That direct hard-negative conflict was zero in this 608-address comparison.

02

We find more than we miss on the valid side.

Seven MV-unknown rows became AgentsVerify-valid; three MV-valid rows became catch-all.

03

A little more time, more recovered valids.

A delayed retry, like AgentsVerify uses for bulk jobs, can recover valid addresses that MillionVerifier leaves unknown.

MillionVerifier appears more aggressive at rejecting addresses. Agents Verify appears safer and better at preserving potentially deliverable contacts while avoiding direct false-invalid classifications. In this comparison, AgentsVerify recovered seven addresses that MillionVerifier left unknown, and public evidence strongly supports at least four of those results. We also had no case where MillionVerifier said valid and AgentsVerify said invalid. The remaining uncertainty is concentrated in provider-policy and catch-all cases, not obvious false-valid decisions.

Run the workflow yourself

Start with 500 free credits.

See pricing