Verified purchaser
Full of incorrect results and also skipping major checks
We have been using and testing this email verifier for some time now. Initially we were excited about this deal as it provides decent credits at a very reasonable price. Although there are many good things, as soon as we started our tests, we found some major flaws in their service. Let me share our experience with this service so that the AppSumo users can take their decisions based on that and hopefully they will be useful to the app owners also to improve their service.
1. One of the major issues with their service is full of inaccurate results. Especially the false negatives. It seems that if they cannot verify an address, they are just marking it as invalid. Bro, we can totally understand that you cannot verify each and every email because of the different kind of firewalls. If you cannot verify something, you should mark it as unknown, not invalid. In that way, we would at least know that the email was not verified and we can take our decision based on that. We would definitely prefer unknown instead of an incorrect invalid status. Are you doing this so that you do not have to refund the credits or just to make the results look better? Whatever it is, it is not a good practice.
2. They are marking any role emails as valid role emails even if it is invalid (or even if the domain does not exists). Probably it's a glitch/forgotten thing, but this glitch should not still be there after months of the app being live. We got a ton of hard bounces and almost got blocked because of that from one campaign.
3. They are also marking many many non-catch-all servers as catch-all. This is actually very dangerous as many marketers tend to send emails to the catch-all emails also (by taking a little risk). But treating non-catch-all as catch-all will result in serious harm to their IPs in such case. You are also marking yahoo, aol etc as catch-all, but clearly they are not catch-all. Please mark them as unknown instead if you cannot verify them or give us something so that we can understand the risks.
4. This app cannot detect spamtraps at all. Basically they do not provide the spamtrap detection feature. No email verifier can detect all spamtraps because of it's nature, but should atleast detect/block the known ones and flag the most likely ones. Hitting a spamtrap is 1000 times more dangerous than an email bounce. Without this detection, service is kind of useless for cold email marketers (however some people may not need this feature depending on the usecase).
5. They cannot detect any modern temporary emails. Just search in google for temporary emails and test the app with the first few google results. They can't detect the majority of them. However, they can detect old emails, which may not be as useful as anyone will naturally use the new ones from Google search.
6. We are not a fan of their maximum 5,000 emails per file limitation. Most of the serious marketers will have a larger email list than that. If I have a list of 50k emails, I definitely wouldn't want to split it into 10 files manually!
Now, let me talk about their positive things. The UI is kind of cool. It is easy to navigate and feels comfortable to use. Verification speed is decent (not very fast, but surely workable). They have API support available, which can be used to automate things. The credits they are offering are also very good at this price point.
Overall, at this point, we cannot use their service in our production environment because of the high risk, but we may keep the code in case the situation improves. We will do the tests again in the future and if they improve the service, I will update the review. Thanks.
Salman_Emailverify.io
Oct 14, 2025Hey 👋 thanks for taking the time to share such a detailed review — we really appreciate the thoughtful breakdown. Feedback like this helps other users understand the tool better and gives us perspective on how different teams use it.
To clarify a few things about how our system works:
1- You’re absolutely right, marking unverifiable emails as invalid instead of unknown can definitely cause confusion. We actually do classify some emails as unknown when our system isn’t able to verify them confidently — this can happen for several reasons like strict firewall filters, greylisting, or temporary mail server responses.
That said, we’ve noticed a few cases where emails that should’ve been labeled as unknown were instead marked invalid, and we’re actively working on improving that logic. Our goal is to make sure every status truly reflects the verification outcome.
Also, just to clarify — we don’t withhold credits for unknown emails. In fact, users automatically get credits back for those so you’re never charged for unverifiable results.
2- Just to clarify, we don’t automatically mark role-based emails (like info@, sales@, etc.) as valid. Their status depends entirely on the MX record check and SMTP response during verification. However, if a domain doesn’t exist and it’s still being marked as valid, that’s definitely not expected behavior.
We’ll dig into this right away to make sure the system correctly flags such cases. There might be an edge case in how our fallback verification handles role addresses, especially when the domain check fails before the SMTP stage — but we’ll get that sorted.
Also, I totally understand how frustrating those hard bounces can be, especially during campaigns. We’ll make this a top priority and push a fix so this doesn’t happen again.
3- We’ve noted this issue and are already digging into why some non–catch-all servers (like Yahoo, AOL, etc.) are being incorrectly marked as catch-all. That said, you’re 100% right — misclassifying these can be risky, especially for marketers sending to “catch-all” addresses. We’ll refine our detection logic so that when verification isn’t conclusive, these are safely marked as unknown instead of catch-all.
We’ll prioritize this fix.
4- At the moment, we don’t provide spam trap detection in our current verification stack. Our system is mainly focused on deliverability accuracy — things like syntax, MX, SMTP, domain health, and catch-all checks — but we completely understand that spam trap detection is critical, especially for cold outreach campaigns.
The good news is our team has already started working on this. We’re building a module that will identify and flag known spam traps and high-risk patterns without compromising on accuracy or privacy. It’s a technically challenging feature to get right, but we’ve decided to push this on priority now so users like you can rely on more complete protection against risky addresses.
5- Our current detection system is much stronger with known or older disposable email providers, while newly launched temporary email domains can sometimes slip through before they’re added to our detection database.
We’re already improving this by integrating real-time domain pattern tracking and automatic updates from multiple data sources so newly created temp domains get flagged faster. Our goal is to catch these disposable addresses in near real time rather than relying solely on static lists.
6- You’re right, the 5,000 emails per file limit can be frustrating, especially for users handling large campaigns. The main reason we initially set this limit was to keep verification speed and stability consistent for everyone, and to prevent timeouts during bulk processing.
That said, we completely understand how inconvenient it is to split big lists manually. Our team is already exploring an update to raise or remove this limit, along with auto-chunking in the background — so users can upload large lists (like 50k+) in one go, and our system will handle the split + verification seamlessly.
We really appreciate you taking the time to test our platform in detail and share such honest feedback. Your points highlight exactly where we can improve, and we’re already taking action on several of them — from refining validation logic and improving catch-all accuracy to adding spam trap detection and enhancing temporary email recognition.
Our goal has always been to make EmailVerify.io one of the most reliable and transparent email verification tools out there — and feedback like yours helps us move faster toward that. Thanks again for helping us make the product better for everyone.