TitanX vs SureConnect: Pricing, Speed, and Phone Intent Accuracy

If you’re searching for TitanX alternatives, you’re probably trying to answer one of the following:

Will this tool help my reps have more real conversations without breaking my bank and without creating compliance risk or burning the list by dialing my list multiple times for scoring purposes.

This guide is written from the SureConnect point of view, but it’s intentionally structured like the TitanX “TitanX Alternatives” article so you can compare apples to apples. TitanX positions itself as a phone intent engine with 24-hour and 5-day turnaround options and cites behavioral intelligence from 400M+ analyzed calls.

TitanX also mentions SureConnect directly, framing it as a lower-cost validation/scoring option and raising questions about transparency and whether “instant” tools use automated calls or AI voice in ways that could create TCPA risk.

So we’ll do two things here:

Explain exactly how SureConnect validation works (in plain English, not marketing).
Address the specific concerns TitanX raises about SureConnect.

Then we’ll flip the script with a section called Similar Questions to Ask TitanX, using the same buyer-guide approach TitanX uses on others.

Common objections about SureConnect (answered directly)

Objection 1: SureConnect is just cheap “phone validation/scoring,” not real phone intent

TitanX uses a lot of industry jargon like phone intent and predictive AI to position itself, and it draws a sharp distinction between dead-number validation and what it calls behavioral intent. It also suggests that instant tools are often nothing more than carrier pings that simply confirm whether a line is active.

In practice, SureConnect and TitanX solve the same core problem. Both aim to help teams understand who is likely to pick up, who will hit voicemail, whether the number belongs to the right person, whether it’s mobile or non-mobile, and whether the data is usable or worthless.

The difference is not the outcome. The difference is in how the result is produced. Based on publicly available information and conversations with TitanX customers, TitanX appears to rely on a more manual, time-intensive scoring process, which is reflected in its 24-hour and five-day turnaround options. Customers evaluating TitanX should confirm directly how scoring is performed and what activities occur during that window.

SureConnect follows a more scalable approach by building one of the largest data partner ecosystems and learning from real-world call outcomes at scale. This allows SureConnect to deliver comparable or better results at a significantly lower cost, roughly eight times cheaper than TitanX, with much faster turnaround, often the same day instead of waiting up to five days. SureConnect also integrates natively with tools teams already use, including Clay, Salesforce, and Zapier, making it easier to operationalize without changing existing workflows.

Here’s what SureConnect actually does:

SureConnect predicts answer likelihood using a data-partner ecosystem that observes real-world calling outcomes real-time at scale. We analyze aggregated call outcome telemetry across many industries and calling motions. That dataset is large enough to identify behavioral patterns, not just “is the line alive.”

What you get back is practical intent for outbound:

Likely to answer
Voicemail-prone
Low answer likelihood
Bad/invalid

That’s not a ping. It’s behavior. That’s Phone Intent.

Objection 2: TitanX says SureConnect’s methodology is not fully transparent

TitanX explicitly states that SureConnect’s “automated validation” methodology is “not publicly detailed in depth,” and tells buyers to ask what “likely to answer” means operationally.

Fair. If a buyer can’t understand what a score means and how it’s produced, they can’t properly evaluate it.

So here’s the transparent version:

What “likely to answer” means in SureConnect:
A number is labeled likely to answer when the aggregated evidence suggests the person behind that line has a materially higher probability of answering cold calls relative to baseline, given similar context and recent behavior patterns observed in the ecosystem.

What SureConnect is not doing:

It is not “just checking if the number is valid.”
It is not claiming to identify your exact prospect with certainty from a single data point.
It is not claiming every likely-to-answer call will connect. It’s a probability lift.

How you should validate our “likely to answer” label:

Run a split test on the same segment, same reps, same script, same time blocks.
Measure connect rate and conversations per hour, not just dials.
Track spam labeling and complaint signals over time.

Objection 3: “Real-time validation sounds suspicious. Are you using automated calls or AI voice?”

TitanX raises the compliance question very directly: buyers should ask vendors whether they use AI to place calls or automated systems to verify “likely to answer,” and whether any calls/texts are placed before reps dial.

Here is the SureConnect stance:
SureConnect intent scoring is built from passive, aggregated call outcome data contributed by our data partner ecosystem. The model learns from real calling behavior happening already across participating networks. That’s why we can return results quickly without needing to place automated test calls to your prospects.

If your compliance team wants it in writing, you should demand it. Not just from SureConnect, from every vendor.

Why people search for TitanX alternatives

TitanX says buyers usually fall into three buckets: evaluating TitanX, evaluating a current solution, or trying to understand the phone intent category.

From what we see, there’s a fourth type of buyer:

You like the idea of phone intent, but multi-day turnaround doesn’t work in a modern outbound workflow. You don’t want to pay premium pricing while there are better and cheaper alternatives, and you need native integrations that fit directly into tools you already use.

And that’s where SureConnect is different.

The turnaround reality: hours vs 24 hours vs 5 days

TitanX offers two delivery windows:

Lightning: 24-hour turnaround
Titan: 5-day turnaround

SureConnect typically returns validation in a few hours depending on list size.

The speed difference comes down to how each platform operates. SureConnect relies on a large, continuously refreshed data partner ecosystem, which allows it to score phone numbers quickly using real-world call outcome signals at scale.

TitanX states that it uses selective human verification and multi-signal behavioral windowing, which can require waiting longer to observe or confirm patterns. That may explain the longer turnaround, but as a buyer, you should not take jargon at face value.

If you are evaluating TitanX, ask exactly what happens during the five-day window. Ask how the process differs from the 24-hour option, what additional signals are collected, and why those signals cannot be generated faster. If a vendor cannot clearly explain what you are waiting for, the delay may not be working in your favor.

Understanding what you’re actually buying

TitanX breaks the market into three categories:

Phone intent platforms (TitanX, SureConnect)
Parallel dialers
Human-assisted dialers

That taxonomy is useful. Here’s the “buyer translation”:

Phone intent platforms:

You call fewer people, but more of them answer.
Your reps stay 1-to-1.
You protect list health longer.

Parallel dialers:

You dial more.
You accept higher spam-flag risk and operational load.

Human-assisted dialers:

You outsource the grind.
You pay for labor and transfers.

If your team is already stressed about spam labels, list burn, and compliance, parallel dialing is gasoline.

TitanX vs SureConnect: head-to-head comparison

TitanX

What they claim:

Behavioral intelligence from 400M+ analyzed calls
40+ independent signals
Selective human verification involved
Turnaround 24 hours or 5 days

Best fit:

Strategic outbound motions where a 1 to 5 day delay does not break workflow
Teams that want to burn their budget
Teams that want to deal with CSV import and exports

SureConnect

What SureConnect is built for:

High-velocity teams that need phone intent fast enough to use today, not next week
Teams that want a simple, clear operational output: who to call first and who to deprioritize
Teams that want validation to blend seamlessly into their workflow without dealing with CSV imports or exports
Teams that want to spend their outbound budget wisely instead of overpaying for slow scoring
Teams aiming for materially higher performance, including 30 percent dial-to-connect rates when executed correctly

How validation works:

Built on a large and continuously expanding data partner ecosystem
Analyzes real-world call outcome telemetry at massive scale, representing billions of call signals across the partner network
Scores are returned in a few hours instead of days

Best fit for:

SDR teams that build or refresh lists daily or weekly and need validation fast
Teams that want phone intent without adding a five-day planning tax to their outbound workflow

Addressing TitanX’s specific concerns about SureConnect

TitanX lists these concerns about SureConnect:

methodology not fully transparent
newer to market / less established track record
faster validation but methodology questions remain
no stated performance guarantee

Here’s how to evaluate those concerns

1) Transparency

You should not buy a scoring tool if the vendor can’t explain:

what signals contribute (at a category level)
how the labels should be used operationally
what it does not do

Use this guide as the baseline, then ask for a technical walkthrough.

2) Track record

If you’re risk-averse, ask for:

anonymized case studies
references in your industry
a pilot plan with success metrics defined up front

3) Faster validation

Fast validation only matters if it stays accurate.
So test it:

Compare connect rate uplift
Compare conversations per hour
Compare list burn and spam labeling trendlines

4) Guarantees

TitanX leans heavily on its $10K guarantee and 300% connect lift claims. On the surface, that sounds reassuring. But it also raises a basic question: why does a tool need a large guarantee in the first place?

With SureConnect, you don’t need to commit thousands of dollars upfront just to find out if it works. Teams can pilot SureConnect for as little as $249, see the results in their own workflow, and decide based on real outcomes instead of marketing promises.

SureConnect pricing is transparent, with no annual lock-ins or long-term contracts. That’s why SureConnect doesn’t rely on guarantees as a sales tactic. The product is designed to prove its value quickly, without forcing customers to bet big and hope a guarantee bails them out later.

2025–2026 TCPA and compliance: the questions you must force vendors to answer

TitanX includes a compliance section and a buyer checklist that asks vendors whether they use AI or automated systems to place calls or verify likely-to-answer, whether they place any calls/texts before reps dial, and who owns liability.

You should ask those questions. Period.

SureConnect buyer checklist:

Confirm in writing that the vendor does not place automated calls to your prospects for scoring.
Confirm in writing whether any AI-generated or prerecorded voice is used in any workflow that touches outbound.
Confirm data handling, retention, and whether your uploaded lists are used to train global models.
Confirm opt-out, suppression, and how they handle sensitive categories (healthcare, finance, etc.).

SureConnect vs TitanX pricing comparison

Pricing is where the difference between SureConnect and TitanX becomes impossible to ignore.

SureConnect is designed as a low-barrier entry product. Teams can start with a 249 dollar trial to validate a list, measure connect rate lift, and see real results in their own outbound workflow before making any larger commitment. There’s no pressure to spend thousands of dollars upfront just to test whether the product works.

TitanX’s trial, by comparison, is significantly more expensive. Based on customer conversations, TitanX trials typically cost over 2,000 dollars, which already requires a meaningful budget commitment before teams see results.

After the trial phase, the pricing gap widens further. SureConnect charges 0.19 dollars per contact for phone validation and scoring. TitanX is reported by customers to charge roughly 1.50 to 2 dollars per contact for validation and scoring. Buyers should confirm current pricing directly with TitanX, but the order-of-magnitude difference is consistent across conversations.

For ongoing usage, SureConnect team plans start at around 10,000 dollars and offer flexible month-to-month options with no annual lock-in required. Teams can scale usage up or down based on performance without committing to long contracts.

TitanX pricing, according to customer feedback, typically starts much higher, often cited around 30,000 dollars, and is tied to annual commitments rather than month-to-month flexibility. Buyers evaluating TitanX should ask directly about minimum contract size, lock-in period, and whether shorter commitment options are available.

In short, SureConnect allows teams to start small, prove value quickly, and scale based on results. TitanX requires a larger upfront and long-term financial commitment, which may make sense for some teams but adds risk for buyers who want to test, iterate, and move fast.

FAQ

Is SureConnect just dead-number validation

No. Dead-number validation is table stakes. The point is prioritization by answer likelihood, powered by aggregated behavioral evidence.

How fast is SureConnect validation

Typically a couple of hours and up to 24 hours depending on list size.

Does SureConnect place automated calls to my prospects

SureConnect scoring is built from passive partner ecosystem call outcome telemetry, so we do not need to place automated test calls to score intent. If this is a gating concern, require it in writing.

Is TitanX better because it takes longer

Not automatically. Longer can mean deeper windowing, human verification, or operational constraints. Ask them exactly what the time is buying you.

phone validation