Proofwire vs IPQualityScore
IPQualityScore is a fraud platform that happens to validate, where we are a validation product that happens to score risk. That difference in emphasis explains most of what follows - including the one measurement where they clearly come out ahead.
How to read this page. 8 dimensions compared: we come out ahead on 4, behind on 2. Every claim about IPQualityScore links to their own documentation or to public reviews. We have not run IPQualityScore through our own benchmark, so you will not find a head-to-head accuracy number here — comparing our measurement to someone else's would not be a comparison.
Choose IPQualityScore if
- Fraud prevention is the actual job: bot detection, device fingerprinting, transaction scoring. That is their centre of gravity and not ours.
- You want one vendor covering fraud signals across phone, email, IP and device in a single risk model.
- You have the volume to make a sales conversation worth having, and a negotiated rate will beat a published one.
Choose Proofwire if
- You need to know whether a contact is real, and a risk score is not the same question.
- You want to see the published price before talking to anyone.
- You would rather have validity and risk as two separate numbers than one blended score.
Side by side
| Dimension | IPQualityScore | Proofwire | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent accuracy measurement | 91% validity in a 2026 third-party benchmark, plus fraud scoring | Not in that benchmark. Ours is published with its scope and reproduces with one command. | Cleanlist, 2026 phone validation benchmark |
| Fraud detection depth | A dedicated fraud platform with device, transaction and behavioural signals | A risk score from validation signals only. No device fingerprinting, no behavioural modelling. | Vendor documentation |
| Pricing transparency | Described as opaque: volume tiers require a sales conversation for an accurate quote | Every rate published, including volume. No sales call required to learn what a lookup costs. | Cleanlist, 2026 phone validation benchmark |
| Headline price | $0.005 to $0.015 per lookup | 1 credit for most lookups, 6 when a live network probe runs. Roughly €0.004 to €0.024. | Cleanlist, 2026 phone validation benchmark |
| Validity and risk | A fraud score, which the same benchmark noted may read as noise for teams who only need validity | Two independent numbers. A real, reachable line can be risky; a disposable inbox can be deliverable. | Cleanlist, 2026 phone validation benchmark |
| Evidence behind a verdict | A rich set of scored fields | Every signal, its contribution in log-odds, its age, and which providers were skipped and why | — |
| Inconclusive results | Billed as a lookup | Never billed | — |
| Free tier | 200 lookups a month | 100 credits with no time limit, plus 40 tools that need no account | Cleanlist, 2026 phone validation benchmark |
They measured better, and it is not close
The same independent benchmark that put the cheap format checkers in the low seventies put IPQualityScore at 91% validity. That is a strong result from a company with real data behind it, and we are not going to bury it three sections down because it is inconvenient. If raw validity accuracy on phone numbers is the only thing you are buying, they have a measured claim and we have a different dataset.
Fraud scoring is their product, not a feature of ours
IPQualityScore models fraud across device, transaction and behavioural signals. Our risk score is derived from validation signals alone - disposable domains, datacenter addresses, spam reports, recent SIM swaps. If somebody is testing stolen cards on your checkout, they have a product for that and we do not. Selling you ours for that job would waste your money.
Where a blended score stops helping
The same benchmark noted that a fraud score can read as noise to teams who only need to know whether a number is real. That is the tension: one number optimised for fraud decisions answers a different question than "should I send this SMS". We keep them apart deliberately - a verdict on validity, and a separate risk figure - so you gate on whichever your use case actually cares about instead of untangling one composite.
On having to ask what it costs
Their volume tiers require a sales conversation, which the benchmark recorded as opaque pricing. That is a legitimate model for a platform sold to large accounts, and at real volume a negotiated rate will beat a published one. It is also a barrier if you want to evaluate on a Sunday without giving anyone your phone number. Our rates are published to the top tier, including volume, because the first thing a developer wants is to work out whether it fits the budget.
Questions
You are conceding the accuracy measurement. Why would I look at you?
On the phone validity figure a third party measured, yes. The reasons to look at us are different: published pricing, validity and risk kept on separate axes, verdicts that come with their evidence, and not being billed for inconclusive answers. If fraud prevention is your actual problem, they are the better fit and we would rather say so.
Have you run IPQualityScore through your benchmark?
No. Both figures on this page come from the same independent 2026 benchmark for them, and from our own published dataset for us. Those are different measurements and we do not present them as a head-to-head.
Can I use both?
That is a common split: a fraud platform at checkout, a validation API at signup and before outbound. Our free tools need no account, so trying the split costs nothing.
Check it yourself
Do not take our word for any of this. Run our public benchmark with npm run bench, read the labelled dataset it ships with, or try the free tools without an account.
Think something here is unfair or out of date? Tell us and we will correct it.