Competitor evidence matrix
This matrix records what a source actually supports. Vendor pages are labelled as company descriptions; independent research is not used to imply a universal ranking or effectiveness rate.
Method: checked 2026-08-26; one source link per observation; no pricing, coverage, traffic, backlink, or performance claim is included unless the linked source supports it. Capabilities can change and should be rechecked before publication or comparison copy.
| Reference | Evidence type | Verified description | Boundary | OfflistMe use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeleteMe Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | direct service company self-description | Its help center describes a Privacy Report with a site-by-site breakdown and separate exposure, removal, and data-point fields. | A report status or update is not, by itself, proof that every data point disappeared from a source. | Publish the same state distinction—requested, responded, verified—without implying a hands-off guarantee. |
| Incogni Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | direct service company self-description | Its help center says the service currently removes data from approximately 100 people-search sites, with a scope that continues to grow, and explains that these sites primarily operate in the United States. | The published scope is approximate and region-specific: the page says US users are actively scanned and sent requests for these sites, while EU and international users focus on other broker categories; this observation does not establish a removal outcome. | Win trust with an auditable directory and clear jurisdiction and platform boundaries. |
| Optery Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | direct service company self-description | Its help center describes Removals Reports with before-and-after screenshots for publicly available profiles and says the reports show where information was removed. | Screenshots are only included when a public profile was available; Optery says private or restricted databases may not be displayed publicly even though it has submitted and tracked opt-out requests. | Use evidence vocabulary carefully and let users review, send, verify, and follow up themselves. |
| Privacy Bee Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | direct service company self-description | Its help center describes coverage across data brokers, people-search sites, search engines, and marketing databases, plus custom-removal workflows. | It says public records, social media, and the dark web are outside the normal removal scope. | Explain source classes plainly so customers choose the right remedy instead of expecting universal deletion. |
| Aura Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | direct service company self-description | Aura says it sends opt-out requests to more than 425 data-broker sites, provides a dashboard, and checks for reappearance. | This is a vendor description, not an independent effectiveness measurement; Aura also says official public records cannot be deleted. | Differentiate on source transparency, first-party sending, and a narrow promise about request preparation. |
| Consumer Reports Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | independent reference independent research | Its 2024 Data Defense project describes an evaluation of seven people-search removal services with 32 participants and a manual control group. | The study is a defined sample and should not be converted into a universal service ranking or current market-wide rate. | Use its outcome-state framing as a model for future consented benchmarking, not as a claim about OfflistMe performance. |
| Consumer Reports removal guide Open source Checked 2026-08-26 | independent reference consumer guidance | The guide distinguishes people-search sites from other data-broker categories and explains both DIY and paid-service approaches. | Guidance is not a complete registry or an effectiveness dataset. | Build category-specific education and link to primary opt-out sources rather than broad “remove everything” language. |
| Electronic Frontier Foundation Open source Checked 2026-09-07 | independent reference consumer guidance | EFF discusses data-broker registration and consumer privacy-law policy considerations. | Policy recommendations are not evidence that a particular broker has complied or that a removal request succeeded. | Separate rights education from operational removal instructions and cite the controlling regulator or statute. |
| DeleteMe Open source Checked 2026-09-16 | direct service company self-description | A September 14, 2026 help-center article says DeleteMe consumer plans are now available in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Singapore, and the UK, with more regions possibly following. | DeleteMe’s own current plans page separately labels its consumer plans "U.S. residents only," so the two company-published pages conflict; this is an unresolved provider-source discrepancy, not a confirmed international rollout. | Do not restate either DeleteMe claim as settled; if OfflistMe publishes international-coverage comparisons, flag the conflict and check both pages again before asserting a country list. |