The Work Number review
The Work Number is a Income & Asset Verification product from Equifax Inc.. MortgageTechReview scores The Work Number 3.4 out of 5.0, ranking The Work Number #16 of the 35 products tracked in Income & Asset Verification Software, as of August 11, 2026. Scores on MortgageTechReview are weighted across five axes and are never paid for or influenced by a vendor relationship.
The Work Number is Equifax's employer-contributed payroll database, and for most lenders a default rather than a decision. Equifax states it holds more than 839 million employee records from over five million contributing employers. It is authorized for Fannie Mae's DU validation and Freddie Mac's AIM, so hits carry rep and warrant relief. Hit rate against your borrower base decides it, because a miss costs money and returns manual work. The documented problem is price, and it is why most lenders now run a cheaper vendor first in the waterfall. A class action filed in May 2024 alleges the per-verification fee rose from $17.85 to $66.45.
How The Work Number compares to Model Match
Ranked first in VOI/VOAModel Match currently scores highest in VOI/VOA, so every other product in the category is compared against it here. That is a ranking on our published rubric rather than a recommendation, and it changes when the scores change. Category Leader
| Axis | The Work Number | Model Match |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 4.1 | 4.9 |
| Functionality & depth | 3.6 | 4.8 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 4.3 | 4.3 |
| Adoption & support | 3.5 | 4.9 |
| Return on spend | 1.8 | 4.9 |
| Overall | 3.4 | 4.8 |
The Work Number wins 0 of 5 axes against Model Match, on the weight profile published for this category. Full head-to-head →
Where it wins
- Authorized for Fannie Mae DU validation and Freddie Mac AIM, so hits bring relief.
- Equifax states 839 million-plus employee records from over five million contributing employers.
- Named Encompass and Empower connections, plus REST API, batch SFTP and portal access.
- Cites integrations with more than 60 technology providers, the widest distribution here.
Where it falls short
- Highest per-verification cost in the category; a class action alleges $17.85 rose to $66.45.
- The same complaint puts historical record pulls at up to $200 each.
- No pricing published; the site only splits card payment from monthly invoicing.
- The complaint's coverage figures leave a real share of borrowers verified another way.
Why it scores 3.4
Scored on the Verification & Data weight profile. The number shows where it sits in this category. It rests on evidence anyone can check, including the vendor's own record. The weights →
Production impact
25% of scoreWhen the record is there, the file moves days faster. The verification returns at once, and nobody contacts the borrower or calls an employer. That removes a whole class of follow-up from processor workload, which is why the product survives its own pricing. The score stops short of the top because a miss produces nothing except a bill and a fallback path. Realized impact tracks your borrower mix, not the headline database size.
Functionality and depth
20% of scoreThe core is one thing done at scale. Employment and income pull from employer and payroll contributions, offered across prequalification, application, underwriting and pre-close. Equifax layers adjacent products around it, including indicators that show whether a record exists before ordering. Orchestration vendors stitch payroll, bank, tax and manual outreach into one order. Against them, this is a single method executed very well rather than a broad toolkit.
Integrations and ecosystem
20% of scoreThis is where it scores highest and the reason incumbency persists. Encompass and Empower are named directly, and the company cites more than 60 technology providers. GSE standing means Desktop Underwriter and Loan Product Advisor consume the result without extra work. Most lenders already have the plumbing built. That raises the switching cost for every competitor in this batch.
Adoption and support
10% of scoreOrdering is familiar to anyone who has processed a loan. Interface work is minimal because the result usually arrives inside the LOS. The strain is commercial, not technical. Verifiers report friction around billing structure and around paying for unsuccessful searches. The site’s own payment terms confirm small users are handled differently from large ones.
Return on spend
25% of scoreThis is a genuine deficiency, not a quibble. The alleged 272 percent rise since 2012 and margins above 50 percent come from the antitrust complaint, not Equifax. They describe a product priced by market position rather than cost to serve. Lenders still justify it on instant-hit files. Almost nobody now justifies it as a first pull, which is itself a verdict on value.
On price. Nothing is published by Equifax. The only public figures came from plaintiffs. They allege $17.85 per verification in 2012 against $66.45 now. Historical record pulls allegedly ran up to $200. Treat those as allegations. Negotiate as though the direction of travel is real. Build the waterfall so this vendor is not the first call.
