Vendor evaluation · 14 providers
All 14 IP geolocation providers, ranked on your own traffic.
Every provider on the public leaderboard under a single methodology. An evaluation runs that methodology against a sample of your traffic and returns the ranking that applies to you.
- Scope
- All 14 providers, one methodology
- Input
- A sample of your traffic
- Output
- One written report, weighted to your countries and network mix
- Scheduling
- Small cohorts, first come first served
Compared with evaluating in-house
The work an in-house comparison has to do before it can measure anything — a signup, a schema and an integration for every vendor — is the reason most of them stop at three or four.
This one runs all 14, already normalised, and scores them against the ground-truth corpus rather than against each other — in days, not weeks of engineering.
The report
A single document covering every provider, measured under one methodology and weighted to your traffic.
- Ranking weighted to your traffic
- Accuracy per provider across your countries and network mix, each figure with a 95% confidence interval.
- Cost model at your volume
- What each option costs at your query volume, against the accuracy it buys.
- Naming differences, separated from real errors
- Disagreements that are a matter of naming rather than geography — “SP” against “São Paulo” — are reported apart from genuine misses.
- Drift over time
- How each provider has moved across the corpus, so a ranking you act on does not go stale without warning.