← Case studies
Scaling Labs
High-volume outbound. Replacing catch-all resolver.
Method: API, bulk processing. Emails tested: 2,000+
“You made it into my production stack. That setup is cheaper than my old plan and recovers ~7% more sendable leads.”
emails tested2,000+
Result20x faster, subscribed
MethodAPI, bulk processing
Use caseCatch-all resolver replacement
The Setup
Before filtrat, the stack was MillionVerifier for first-line email verification and Scrubby for catch-all resolution as a second pass. The system worked but Scrubby was slow (1.5 hour queue) and expensive.
The test: run filtrat against real sending data with known bounce outcomes.
The Tests
What was tested across 2,000+ real emails:
Catch-All Comparison
| Metric | Filtrat | Scrubby |
|---|---|---|
| Bounce rate on "valid" verdicts | 3.64% | 3.69% |
| Processing time | Minutes | 1.5 hours |
| Per-email reasoning | Yes | Binary only |
| Price | Fraction | Full plan |
MatchedScrubby's catch-all accuracy
20x fasterMinutes vs 1.5 hour queue
~7% moreSendable leads recovered
FractionOf Scrubby's cost
Before / After
Before
Scrubby
- 1.5 hour queue
- Full plan price
- Binary verdicts only
After
Filtrat
- Minutes
- Fraction of the cost
- Per-email reasoning
Result
~7% more
- Sendable leads recovered
- Lower total cost
- Subscribed. In production.
Key Numbers
Emails tested2,000+
Catch-all accuracy vs ScrubbyMatched (3.64% vs 3.69%)
Speed improvement20x
Additional sendable leads~7%
Per-email reasoningYes
OutcomeSubscribed. In production.
The Bottom Line
Filtrat matched Scrubby’s catch-all accuracy at 20x the speed and a fraction of the cost. A high-volume sender tested it on 2,000+ real emails with actual bounce data, put it into production, and subscribed.
200 free credits.
No card.
Test your first list. See how many results you have been overpaying for.