How our reverse phone lookup ranking is calculated

The 100-point Documented Feature Score

Standard result depth contributes up to 45 points, search breadth 20, free access 15, phone safety 10, and privacy controls 10. Unknown capabilities receive zero instead of an estimate.

Disclosure quality is assessed and shown because unclear limits matter to readers, but it is not scored. This keeps the five scored criteria at a true 100-point maximum.

• 45 points — standard, basic, or free result depth
• 20 points — documented phone, people, address, and email search breadth
• 15 points — published free-access level
• 10 points — caller ID, spam, scam, or blocking functions
• 10 points — opt-out, suppression, or unlisting controls
• Unscored — required disclosure-quality assessment

Evidence labels prevent claims from changing category

Official product pages, policies, and app-store listings establish what the provider publishes. Company-authored profiles on third-party platforms remain company claims. Independent walkthroughs establish what one reviewer observed on a stated date.

A source never proves more than it records. A feature list does not prove accuracy, a privacy walkthrough does not prove search quality, and a free-search claim does not establish a complete free report.

Ranking, tie breakers, and updates

Totals determine the order. Ties are resolved first by result-depth points, then by a more explicit free allowance, then by more complete privacy documentation. Radaris is #1, Spy Dialer #2, and VeriPages #3 under the current ledger.

The evidence was checked on September 1, 2026. A material product change, corrected source, controlled test, or confirmed relationship can trigger an update; the page date must change with the ledger rather than by cosmetic refresh.

Why there is no accuracy score

No standardized number set was tested, so no provider received points for match accuracy, coverage, freshness, or lookup success rate. First-hand screenshots, timing data, and controlled outcomes were not supplied.

A future accuracy study would require the same consent-safe known numbers, predefined correct outcomes, consistent access tiers, repeated timing, and publication of misses as well as hits. Until then, any accuracy winner claim would be unsupported.