Email Enrichment: Can Bounced Emails Always Be Your Fault?

Tim P. · 2025-12-15T17:20:29.936Z

Another question: If I run the work email enrichment and my email still bounces in the end - can I be 100% sure that the issue was on my side?

Email Enrichment: Can Bounced Emails Always Be Your Fault? | Clay

Clay Support
APP
·
·
Not necessarily. Even with our email validation through ZeroBounce, bounces can still happen for reasons beyond your control. [1]
Catch-all emails are marked as valid by default, but there's uncertainty whether they belong to the specific person or are aliases. [2] Plus, deliverability depends on factors like the recipient's server status, inbox capacity, and their email provider's filtering rules. [3]
So a bounce doesn't automatically mean it's your setup - it could be the email itself or external factors.
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Is that what you were looking for?
Tim P.
·
·
Do you have any statistics on how often it still gets it wrong despite the verification? I sometimes review emails manually and see some that are obviously not right (for instance if it's a huge company like exxon, it's unlikely that a junior person has an email like js@exxon.com)
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Yeah, we actually have some data on this. No verification tool is 100% accurate - there's always risk of false positives and negatives. [1]
In our testing, traditional email verification tools often miss catch-all and junk emails, which can make up to 50% of lead lists. [2] For personal emails specifically, we found that only 43% of enrichment attempts returned confirmed valid emails, even though providers returned emails 53% of the time. [3]
Your example about js@exxon.com makes sense - that's exactly the kind of thing that can slip through verification but fails the common sense test for large companies.
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Did that answer your question?
Tim P.
·
·
Wow - so you are saying that even with your waterfall you get about a 50% hit rate at best?
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Not quite - those numbers are from different contexts. The 50% figure refers to catch-all and junk emails that traditional verification tools miss, not our overall hit rate. [1]
For personal emails specifically, we found 43% confirmed valid emails out of total enrichment attempts, even though providers returned emails 53% of the time. [2]
Work email performance varies by provider and depends on factors like email quality, verification methods, and the specific waterfall setup you're using.
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Does this clarify things?
Tim P.
·
·
can you share data on work email performance
Clay Support
APP
·
·
We tested 12 work email providers (Hunter, RocketReach, People Data Labs, Findymail, etc.) using 5,000 VP and C-suite contacts across 15 European countries. [1]
Our verification used strict criteria:
Invalid: Personal emails, wrong job emails, or flagged by 4+ verifiers
Valid: Confirmed by 2+ verifiers
Ultra Valid: Confirmed by 4+ verifiers [2]
We calculated confidence scores using: (Ultra Valid % × 70%) + (Valid % × 30%), prioritizing highest quality results. Providers can score as low as -25% when delivering incorrect emails since wrong emails hurt outreach more than no email at all.
The testing matched emails against actual replies to measure real-world effectiveness, accounting for the fact that professionals often have multiple valid work addresses.
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Is that what you were looking for?
Tim P.
·
·
super cool!
Clay Support
APP
·
·
Glad you found the information helpful! If you have any more questions or need further details, just let me know.
Tim P.
·
·
Noticed this page you guys wrote - can you share the links behind it again? https://www.clay.com/blog/work-email-verification-methodology
Tim P.
·
·
https://www.clay.com/data-tests/best-non-catchall-email-verifiers

31 comments