Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What sources verify the accuracy of the cost numbers each side used in the exchange?
Executive summary
The available search results do not include the original “exchange” or the specific cost figures you referenced, so I cannot verify those particular numbers directly; available sources instead offer market-wide price ranges and verification methodologies for phone‑ and identity‑verification services (e.g., per‑check costs around $0.20 in 2025) [1] and variable temporary/virtual SMS number prices from a few cents up to several dollars [2]. Where parties cite per‑unit costs, reporters and market researchers rely on vendor price lists, industry research (Juniper, BiometricUpdate) and specialist guides — none of which are the direct, independent audit of an individual claim in your query [1] [3] [2].
1. What the public market reporting actually verifies
Industry analysts publish headline averages that are routinely cited as benchmarks. Juniper Research and BiometricUpdate report global identity‑verification unit costs around $0.20 per check in 2025, with forecasts down to $0.17 by 2029; BiometricUpdate gives regional breakdowns (about $0.24 in parts of Europe and Asia Pacific) that reporters use to evaluate claims [1] [3]. These figures are not audits of a single transaction but aggregated estimates from market research firms and thus serve as comparators rather than proof of one side’s claimed line‑item costs [1] [3].
2. Provider price guides and “how‑to” articles that explain unit costs
Consumer and technical guides for temporary/virtual phone numbers list concrete price ranges and success‑rate tradeoffs. SMSConfirmed’s 2025 guide states U.S. SMS verification numbers can cost between $0.03 and $3 per use, noting differences between non‑VoIP (higher success) and cheaper VoIP options (lower success) — useful to test whether a claimed per‑SMS cost is plausible [2]. Similarly, multiple how‑to and comparison pieces (Nerdbot, ThePrimeBlogs, Dicloak) discuss free vs premium temporary numbers and warn of hidden reliability or security costs when comparing nominal price claims [4] [5] [6]. These sources validate plausibility but do not independently audit any party’s accounting [2] [4] [6].
3. What independent verification looks like — and what’s missing from the search results
A proper verification of competing cost claims would require access to vendor invoices, contracts, pass‑through fees, or third‑party audits. The search results include internal/enterprise tools for cost checking — e.g., a “Cost Verification Report” described in a project‑pricing help page — which illustrates how organizations validate proposals by breaking out labor, materials and overhead [7]. However, there is no evidence in the results of a forensic audit, vendor invoice set, or regulator review of the specific exchange you reference; therefore the precise numbers used by each side cannot be corroborated from these items alone [7].
4. How journalists and analysts test contested cost claims
Reporters and analysts triangulate by: (a) comparing the contested figure to industry benchmarks like Juniper and BiometricUpdate [1] [3]; (b) checking vendor price lists and marketplace listings for temporary numbers or verification services [2] [4]; and (c) seeking documentary proof — contracts, invoices, or internal cost‑verification reports [7]. None of the supplied search results show such documentary proof tied to a specific dispute, so publicly available reporting would treat the numbers as plausible ranges unless one side produced invoices or an independent audit [1] [2] [7].
5. Conflicting perspectives and hidden agendas to watch for
Market research firms (Juniper) and industry outlets (BiometricUpdate) have an incentive to sell forecasts and reports that emphasize market growth or decline; vendor blog posts and “how‑to” sites (SMSConfirmed, Nerdbot, ThePrimeBlogs) may promote specific services or affiliate‑revenue models that bias price or success‑rate claims [1] [3] [2] [4] [5]. When a party cites a low per‑unit cost, check whether they exclude real‑world failure/retry rates, support costs, or higher‑quality non‑VoIP options that cost more — these exclusions are a common way to make a number look better than the total economic cost [2] [4].
6. Practical next steps to verify the numbers in your exchange
Ask each side for the underlying evidence: vendor invoices, contracts showing per‑unit pricing and volume discounts, and any internal “cost verification” reports (the format for the latter is shown in a project‑pricing help doc) [7]. Cross‑check those figures against market benchmarks from Juniper/BiometricUpdate for per‑check costs ($0.20 average in 2025) and against SMS provider price ranges (about $0.03–$3 for U.S. temporary numbers) to flag outliers [1] [3] [2]. If no documents are produced, treat the claims as unverified — the supplied sources do not contain an independent audit of the figures in your exchange [7] [1] [2].
Limitations: The search results do not include the specific exchange or its supporting invoices, so this analysis describes how to verify such claims using available benchmarks and where to demand documentary proof [1] [2] [7].