1. How to use this framework
- List the tools you are considering.
- For each criterion below, find the answer on the tool’s own pricing, product, security or help pages. Note the URL and the date you checked it.
- Score each criterion: answered and fits your list, answered but does not fit, or not answered.
- Run the same sample of confirmed owners through each tool and check the results against your notes.
Pages change. A comparison is only as current as the date on each note.
2. The six criteria
| Criterion | Question to answer from the tool’s own pages | What to test |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing rule | What counts as a charge? Are duplicates and repeats charged? Is the maximum cost shown before a search? | Run a list with known duplicates and compare the charge with the rule. |
| Match evidence | Does it show which person matched the owner name, and the other people found? | Check results against owners you confirmed from county records. |
| LLC owners | Does it search state filings? Which states? Does it link the source record? | Run company-owned rows and open the source filing. |
| CRM export | Which formats? Does your record ID survive? Does each phone keep its own status? | Import the export into your CRM. |
| Contact rules | What Do Not Call information is included, and how is a number with no check labelled? | Look at how unchecked numbers appear in the export. |
| Data handling | Who can see your list, how long is it kept, and has any independent audit been done? | Read the security page and note what it does not say. |
3. Why these criteria
- Pricing rule. Two tools with the same headline price can charge for different things. The cost calculator models a list.
- Match evidence. A search at an address can return several people. See what a skip trace match proves.
- LLC owners. Filing contacts are not proof of ownership. See how to find who owns an LLC.
- CRM export. A file that will not import costs time. The CRM CSV checker finds problems first.
- Contact rules. A status does not decide what contact is allowed. See DNC scrubbing.
- Data handling. You are uploading owner lists. Know where they go.
4. What not to compare on
- Claims you cannot check, such as unsourced hit rates.
- Number of phones per record without knowing whose phones they are.
- Third-party review summaries, instead of the tool’s own current pages and your own test.
5. Dated comparisons
Each page below quotes one company from its own site and records the day the page was read:
- Locate Next and PropStream, read October 22, 2026.
- Locate Next and REISkip, read October 22, 2026.
- Locate Next and DealMachine, read October 22, 2026.
6. Locate Next on the same criteria
Locate Next’s own answers are on its live pages: pricing for the charge rule, bulk skip tracing for match review, LLC owner lookup for filings, CRM export for formats, and security and data sources for data handling. Score it the same way as any other tool. The step-by-step version of this framework is how to choose a skip tracing service.
Common questions
Which skip tracing tool is best?
This framework does not rank tools. Score each one on the six criteria from its own current pages, then test with owners you have confirmed.
Where should comparison facts come from?
From each tool’s own current pages, with the URL and the date you checked, and from your own test run.
How big should a test sample be?
Large enough to include person owners, company owners and duplicates from your real list, using owners you already confirmed from county records.
Why not compare on hit rate?
A hit rate without a source or definition cannot be checked, and a hit is not proof the contact belongs to the owner.
Are there comparisons with named tools?
Yes. Three pages quote one company’s own site, with the URL and the date the page was read. This framework still does not rank tools.
Sources
- 47 CFR 64.1200, FCC telemarketing and do-not-call rules. Checked October 22, 2026.
- FTC, Q&A for telemarketers and sellers about the Do Not Call provisions of the TSR. Checked October 22, 2026.
This page is general information, not legal advice.