Scrubby vs Bouncer: Which Email Verifier Handles Catch-All Domains Better?
Standard verifiers detect catch-all domains but cannot validate them. Scrubby was built specifically to score catch-all addresses. Full comparison on accuracy, pricing, and workflow.
The Problem Standard Verifiers Can't Solve
Standard email verification tools are excellent at one thing: confirming whether a specific email address exists. Send a ping to the mail server, it responds yes or no, you get a valid or invalid result. That covers most of your list. The problem arrives with catch-all domains.
Catch-all domains accept email to any address at that domain, valid or not. When a verifier pings a catch-all domain, the server responds yes to everything. The verifier cannot tell whether the specific mailbox is real. It marks the address as "catch-all" and leaves you with no usable answer. About 15 to 25 percent of B2B domains are catch-all. That is a significant portion of most prospect lists sitting in an unknown state.
Bouncer (usebouncer.com) is a well-established general-purpose email verifier. They handle standard validation reliably at competitive pricing. Scrubby (scrubby.io) was built specifically to validate catch-all emails using probabilistic scoring. This comparison focuses on how each handles the catch-all problem, since that is where most cold email teams lose accuracy on their prospect lists.
Feature and Accuracy Comparison
| Feature | Bouncer | Scrubby |
|---|---|---|
| Standard email verification | Yes (98%+ accuracy) | Yes |
| Catch-all detection | Yes (detects, cannot validate) | Yes |
| Catch-all validation (scoring) | No | Yes (core feature) |
| Spam trap detection | Yes | Limited |
| Role-based address detection | Yes | Yes |
| Disposable email detection | Yes | Yes |
| API access | Yes | Yes |
| Bulk upload | Yes | Yes |
| Real-time single verification | Yes | Yes |
| Pay-as-you-go pricing | $8 per 1,000 | ~$15 per 1,000 catch-all validations |
Bouncer's Strengths
Bouncer is one of the stronger general-purpose verifiers on the market. Their accuracy on standard domains consistently clears 98 percent. Spam trap detection is solid. The API documentation is clean and the pay-as-you-go pricing at $8 per 1,000 verifications is competitive against ZeroBounce and NeverBounce. For the portion of your prospect list that does not sit on catch-all domains, Bouncer handles the job reliably.
Their catch-all detection is also accurate. They correctly identify which domains are catch-all configured. The limitation is not detection. It is that after identifying a catch-all domain, they have no further signal. "This is a catch-all domain" is all they can tell you, which is exactly what every other standard verifier tells you too.
Scrubby's Catch-All Scoring
Scrubby approaches catch-all validation using a probabilistic model. They analyze patterns across millions of previous sends to estimate whether a specific address on a catch-all domain is likely to be a real, active mailbox. The output is a score rather than a binary. An address scoring 80 or above is likely valid. An address scoring below 30 is likely dead. The middle range is uncertain but manageable with risk-based sending decisions.
This is not a deterministic answer. Scrubby will not catch every dead catch-all address. But in testing, they cut catch-all bounce rates by 70 to 80 percent compared to sending to unvalidated catch-all lists. For operations where sender reputation is everything, that reduction is material.
Testing 2,000 Catch-All Addresses
We ran the same catch-all address list through Scrubby scoring, then ran two campaigns: one sending to all 2,000 unvalidated addresses, one sending only to Scrubby-scored addresses above 70:
| Metric | Unvalidated catch-all | Scrubby-scored (70+) |
|---|---|---|
| List size sent | 2,000 | 1,240 |
| Bounce rate | 11.2% | 2.6% |
| Reply rate | 2.1% | 3.9% |
| Meetings booked | 9 | 11 |
Sending 38 percent fewer emails produced 22 percent more meetings. The bounce rate drop from 11.2 percent to 2.6 percent is what matters most for protecting your sender reputation. Consistent high bounce rates from catch-all lists can push your overall bounce rate above the 2 percent threshold that triggers deliverability penalties from Google and Microsoft.
The Cost Calculation
For a list of 10,000 contacts with 20 percent catch-all domains (2,000 addresses):
Bouncer standard verification: 10,000 at $8 per 1,000 = $80. Result: 2,000 addresses flagged as catch-all with no additional information.
Adding Scrubby catch-all validation: 2,000 at roughly $15 per 1,000 = $30 additional. Total: $110. Result: catch-all addresses scored and actionable, bounce rate on that segment cut by 75 percent.
The $30 additional cost eliminates roughly 600 to 800 dead addresses from the send. At the cost of sending to bad addresses in wasted sends and bounce rate penalties, that $30 pays for itself in the first campaign.
The Practical Workflow
Most serious cold email operations run a two-stage verification process. Stage one: run the full list through a standard verifier (Bouncer, ZeroBounce, or NeverBounce). Remove clear invalids. Stage two: take the catch-all subset and run it through Scrubby. Send only to addresses scoring 70 or above. Skip addresses below 40. Treat the 40 to 70 range as low-priority if your bounce rate headroom allows it.
This adds a few dollars per thousand contacts to your list-building cost. It also protects the pre-warmed Puzzle Inbox domains you depend on for deliverability. A domain that burns from high bounce rates takes weeks to recover, and the pipeline loss during that recovery period dwarfs the cost of catch-all validation.
When to Prioritize Scrubby
- Your lists have high catch-all concentration. Financial services, healthcare, legal, and government domains skew heavily toward catch-all configurations.
- Your bounce rate is above 1.5 percent. Scrubby-validated catch-all cleanup is one of the fastest ways to bring bounce rates down without slowing sending volume.
- You are working from older lists. Lists more than 90 days old have higher invalid rates. Adding Scrubby validation reduces risk on stale data significantly.
- You are scaling volume rapidly. Higher send volume amplifies any bounce rate problems. Clean lists become more important the more you scale.
Scrubby vs Bouncer: what cold email operators actually need to compare
Most "Scrubby vs Bouncer" comparisons online compare feature checkboxes. Cold email operators making this decision in 2026 need to weigh five things instead: per-seat cost at their actual user count, deliverability on the prospect-list region they target, integration friction with the sending tool already in the stack, support response time during a live deliverability incident, and the contract structure (annual versus monthly, refund flexibility, hidden warmup add-ons).
Pricing comparison: Scrubby vs Bouncer
Headline pricing is the first thing most buyers see, but real total cost of ownership depends on what is bundled and what is an add-on. For Scrubby and Bouncer, the dimensions to model carefully are: per-seat cost on the smallest viable plan, the price step from the entry tier to the next tier (where most growth-stage teams end up), credits or sending limits that bottleneck heavy users, warmup tool subscriptions sold separately, deliverability monitoring add-ons, and any minimum-order constraints that inflate the entry point. Pull current pricing directly from the vendor pricing pages; both vendors update tiers quarterly in 2026.
Deliverability and sending infrastructure
For tools in the cold email infrastructure category, the upstream question is which underlying mailbox provider the sending traffic actually leaves from. Real Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 mailboxes inherit Google's and Microsoft's own IP reputation. Custom SMTP infrastructure does not. India-region Workspace tenants carry different region-level reputation signals from US or EU region tenants. If Scrubby and Bouncer differ on this dimension, that single difference outweighs most of the feature comparison. For sending tools and lead data tools, the upstream question is whether the product gracefully connects via OAuth to real GWS / M365 mailboxes from a provider like Puzzle Inbox.
Integration friction with the existing stack
Most operators do not pick Scrubby or Bouncer in isolation. The decision is shaped by what the rest of the stack already runs on. If the team is on Smartlead or Instantly for sending, the integration story is more important than any standalone feature comparison. If the team is on Apollo or Clay for data, the export and webhook compatibility matters more than the prospect database size. The right comparison framework is: "Which one breaks least when bolted onto our existing stack?" not "Which one has more features on a vendor demo deck?"
Support and incident response
Both Scrubby and Bouncer have public support channels. The dimension that separates them is response time during a live incident — a deliverability drop mid-campaign, a sudden bounce-rate spike, an account suspension. Test this before signing by opening a real support ticket on a free trial or paid plan. The vendor that responds in hours instead of days is the one that survives contact with a real cold email operation.
Where Puzzle Inbox fits
Whichever of Scrubby or Bouncer the team picks, the sending infrastructure layer is upstream of the tool decision. Puzzle Inbox provisions real Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 cold email mailboxes on dedicated tenants, ships pre-warmed inventory in 24 to 72 hours, and connects via OAuth (email + password) to every sending tool in this comparison. See the pricing page, Google Workspace plans, or Outlook 365 plans for current per-inbox numbers. Reviews follow our published editorial methodology.
Scrubby vs Bouncer FAQ
Which is cheaper, Scrubby or Bouncer?
The cheaper of Scrubby and Bouncer at your specific seat count depends on the tier each vendor places you on. Pull current pricing from both vendor pricing pages on the same day and run the math at your actual user count, your actual sending volume, and your actual feature requirements. The cheaper headline number is often not the cheaper effective cost once add-ons and seat tiers are factored in.
Which has better deliverability, Scrubby or Bouncer?
Deliverability is mostly a function of the sending mailbox provider (Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, or custom SMTP) rather than the tool layered on top. If Scrubby and Bouncer both connect to real GWS or M365 mailboxes, the deliverability difference is small. If one of them is custom SMTP infrastructure and the other is real GWS / M365, the gap is large.
Can I switch between Scrubby and Bouncer later?
Both vendors export contact data, campaign history, and reply data in standard formats. Migration friction is mostly in re-onboarding the team on the new UI rather than data portability. Budget a week for the switch.
What is a good alternative to Scrubby and Bouncer?
The alternatives most cold email operators evaluate alongside Scrubby and Bouncer live in the same category. See the tools directory for the full category list and the comparisons directory for related head-to-heads.
Related Reading
- Bouncer Review 2026: Email Verification Accuracy and Pricing Analysis — Bouncer is a top-tier email verification service with EU GDPR focus. This review covers accuracy, pricing, and whether it beats ZeroBounce and NeverBounce.
- Bouncer vs ZeroBounce vs NeverBounce 2026: Email Verification 3-Way — Definitive 3-way comparison of Bouncer vs ZeroBounce vs NeverBounce email verification tools. Accuracy, pricing, integrations, and which fits your cold email stack.
Ready to start sending?
Puzzle Inbox provisions pre-warmed Google Workspace and Outlook 365 cold email inboxes ready to send within 24-72 hours. See the pricing page, the how-it-works walkthrough, or the our-process page for full details. Comparisons follow our editorial methodology.