Phase 2 and 12 · Updated August 7, 2026

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.

Written byRahul Kandoriya·Founder, OfflistMe·Last updated August 7, 2026

Method: checked 2026-08-07; 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 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Its help center says the service targets approximately 100 people-search sites in the United States and documents a Custom Removals feature.	The published scope is approximate and US-specific; the service also says it does not remove data from the dark web.	Win trust with an auditable directory and clear jurisdiction and platform boundaries.
Optery Open source Checked 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Its help center describes removal reports with screenshots and before/after evidence for covered sites.	Optery says coverage and results vary and cannot guarantee removal from every source, including restricted or private databases.	Use evidence vocabulary carefully and let users review, send, verify, and follow up themselves.
Privacy Bee Open source Checked 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Aura says it sends opt-out requests to more than 200 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 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	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.

Phase 2 and 12 · Updated August 7, 2026

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.

Written byRahul Kandoriya·Founder, OfflistMe·Last updated August 7, 2026

Reference	Evidence type	Verified description	Boundary	OfflistMe use
DeleteMe Open source Checked 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Its help center says the service targets approximately 100 people-search sites in the United States and documents a Custom Removals feature.	The published scope is approximate and US-specific; the service also says it does not remove data from the dark web.	Win trust with an auditable directory and clear jurisdiction and platform boundaries.
Optery Open source Checked 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Its help center describes removal reports with screenshots and before/after evidence for covered sites.	Optery says coverage and results vary and cannot guarantee removal from every source, including restricted or private databases.	Use evidence vocabulary carefully and let users review, send, verify, and follow up themselves.
Privacy Bee Open source Checked 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	direct service company self-description	Aura says it sends opt-out requests to more than 200 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 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	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 2026-08-07	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.