What were they using beforehand? Why look for another provider?

EMI was one of the earliest users of Research Defender and had also developed a proprietary suite of fraud solutions; however, this combination was still insufficient in addressing low quality traffic - especially as fraudsters now leverage mobile and residential proxies to hide their IP and location, anti-detect browsers to obfuscate their true device fingerprint, and AI to generate high-quality responses in any language.

‍

Why did they need to switch?

Even with Research Defender, EMI noticed post-survey removals had jumped drastically, even hitting 50% on some surveys. As data quality is their key value proposition to clients, they knew they needed to make a switch. 

What other providers were they evaluating?

EMI facilitated a comprehensive bake-off process between Sentry, Research Defender, Dtect and SurValidate.

Verisoul stood out to EMI on four core fronts:

1. Proxy and location spoofing capabilities, which are not as robust in other products 
2. Network and traffic monitoring in order to catch high frequency survey takers
3. Strong customer support function to set them up to succeed‍
4. Verisoul plays across industries, such as fintech and adtech, which helps strengthen the product for customers in every industry

‍

‍

‍

In a direct comparison with Dtect and SurValidate on EMI’s B2C study, Verisoul demonstrated an impressive ability to limit false positives. When Dtect marks a consumer respondent as Fake, Verisoul marks them as Real 62% of the time. For SurValidate, the difference was even more stark - 69% of their “Fake” respondents get marked as Real. Verisoul’s detection isn’t stricter or looser - it’s more precise. Verisoul relies on active forensics vs false-positive prone IP look-ups and “device fingerprints” designed for online advertising attribution. Despite blocking less than half as many respondents, Verisoul outperformed in identifying the respondents most likely to be cleaned out post-survey.

‍

Verisoul vs. Research Defender

‍

‍

Verisoul agreed much more closely with the accounts Research Defender marked as “Fake.” However, across Healthcare, B2B, and B2C tests, Research Defender missed 51-74% of the fraudsters that Verisoul flagged. Given the augmentative elements of Verisoul’s system, EMI ultimately opted to move forward with a combination of Research Defender and Verisoul. While Verisoul outperforms on network and device signals, EMI retained Research Defender’s pre-dupe functionality that detects hyperactivity and duplicate respondent emails across panels, while leveraging Verisoul for core fraud prevention capabilities.

How are they using Verisoul?

As a sample consultancy, Verisoul sits at the front of EMI’s workflow (pre-survey), before the respondent ends up in the client’s survey, helping ensure high-quality sample.

• Improved post-survey removals from 50% (when using Research Defender) to 19% (when adding Verisoul) for a large B2B study
  
  • Research Defender misses 51-74% of the fraud that Verisoul catches
    ‍
• Limited unnecessary respondent blocks when compared to Dtect and SurValidate on a large B2C study
  
  • Verisoul blocked only 11.5% of respondents (vs 25%+ for Dtect and Survalidate) while still being the most effective for preventing fraud
  • 62% of Dtect’s Fake decisions marked Real by Verisoul
  • 69% of SurValidate’s Fake decisions marked Real by Verisoul

‍

Note: This case study intentionally excludes Sentry, given they help catch something unique from the other four providers: low-quality responses from high-quality respondents. Verisoul and Sentry have a bi-directional preferred partnership, and Sentry added a one-click Verisoul integration into their platform.