The Real Story Behind NMVTIS VIN Searches
Abstract
In doing research on VINs, I came across the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS) which describes itself as “designed to protect consumers from fraud and unsafe vehicles and to keep stolen vehicles from being resold.” But, is it really protecting us from fraud? In this article, I investigate what information is available via NMVTIS and how some of the third-party practices in providing us NMVTIS data border on questionable as they are selling reports on VINs where no data exists. I will consider the question that, in the name of preventing fraud, are the NMVTIS partners committing a form of fraud themselves?
I will share how I threw a lot of VINs at the NVMTIS partner sites for both cars that are real and for those that are simply pulled out of thin air. I tested to see how each site held up in the face of bad data coming in and, most importantly, what their sales practices were when they had nothing to offer. To test the sites, I subscribed to them when pricing was reasonable. I spent my own money on this research receiving no sponsorship from any site reviewed here. No link in this review contains any affiliate information nor will I get compensated for any information provided here directing you to these services.
TL;DR
There is a lot of information in this article. If you just want to just see the results or need a reference once you have read the article, this chart is it. For each site, I’ve given it a rating –
- Recommend – go ahead and use it
- Skip – there are some red flags such as not detecting invalid or fake VINs. Skip this site for one of the higher rated ones
- Avoid – there are red flags across the board such as generating reports when there is no NMVTIS data.. Choose any of the above over these
The full summary report is located here.
| Site | Cost | Fake Vin | Invalid VIN | Report purchase | Rating |
| Bumper | 7 day trial for $1. After that, $27.99/month. 50 report limit | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Sold report for fake VIN | Avoid |
| BeenVerified | 7 day trial for $1. After that, $28.79/month. 100 report limit | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Sold report for fake VIN | Avoid |
| carsforsale | free | Detected | Detected | Recommend | |
| Vehicle History Report | free | Detected | Detected | Recommend | |
| CarVertical | $29.99/report. Discounts per report for buying more | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Not tested | Skip |
| CheckThatVin | $3.95/report | Detected | Detected | Recommend | |
| clearvin | $15.99/report. Discounts per report for buying more | Failed to detect | Detected | Not tested | Skip |
| epicvin | 3 day trial for $1 and then $99/monmth; 5 reports on trial | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Sold report for fake and invalid VINs | Avoid |
| VinGurus | $14.99/report. Discounts per report for buying more | Failed to detect | Not tested | Skip | |
| VINinspect | 3 day trial for $1 and then $99/month; 5 reports on trial | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Sold report for fake and invalid VINs | Avoid |
| GoodCar | $2.95 for 7 days of unlimited reports. $9.95 for premium report. | Failed to detect | Detected | Sold report for fake VIN | Avoid |
| InfoTracer | $2.95 for 7 days of unlimited reports. $9.95 for premium report. | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Sold report for fake VIN | Avoid |
| recordsfinder | $2.95 for 7 days of unlimited reports | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Not tested but this has same parent as GoodCar and InfoTracer | Avoid |
| StateRecords.org | $4.95 for 7 days of unlimited reports. $9.95 for premium report. | Failed to detect | Detected | Sold report for fake VIN | Avoid |
| titlecheck.us | $9.98 per report | Detected | Detected | Recommend | |
| VinAudit | $9.99 per report | Failed to detect | Detected | Not tested | Skip |
| VINCheck.info | free with limit and then $9.99 monthly membership | Failed to detect | Failed to detect | Skip | |
| VINdata | $19.99/report. Discount per report when more reports purchased | Failed to detect but didn’t offer report for sale | Detected | Not tested | Skip |
| vinsmart | $9.95/report. Discount per report when more reports purchased | Detected | Detected | Recommend |
Introduction
In my recent efforts to deep dive into the 2022 Ice White Mustang and in trying to identify them, my project developed into one identifying the VINs of every 2022 Mustang. I got real deep into VINs, how to determine which VINs actually represented cars and how to learn about the cars behind those VINs.
In trying to reverse engineer which VINs represented actual 2022 Mustangs, I needed a way to validate the VIN list which I had created and to determine which represented real cars. Ford is pretty rigorous about VIN generation and, if you know the rules, you can make some good guesses at the VINs of their cars. It’s true, there is some variability in that. For each hypothetical VIN, I needed a way to test if there was a real car there.
Carfax turned out to be a great way to do that. In the purchase process for Carfax, you give it a VIN and it will tell you how many records exist for it. If there are records, that’s a pretty positive indication that there is a car there. The issue was doing that in bulk. Entering hundreds (or thousands) of VINs by hand into the Carfax website was not feasible. I set out to find alternatives that might help me validate VINs in bulk.
My search took me to NMVTIS. NVMTIS tracks vehicle history by VIN such as title status, mileage, salvage history and a few other things. Alongside of Carfax, this seemed to be another good source for validating VINs. If a VIN got positive hits on any of this data from a search into NMVTIS data then it would indicate that the VIN did actually represent a car. Or did it?
The problems with NMVTIS
NMVTIS does not directly offer it’s data to consumers. It uses a number of third-parties to provide that data. I set out to try some of these vendors and see what they had to offer and how it might help me. This took an unexpected turn. It really didn’t help my cause but it did expose to me a number of issues with these NMVTIS partners as I entered VINs into their web sites in trying to determine if they were valid for actual cars or not.
It turns out that many of these partners seem so eager on selling you a report that they ignore the fact that the VIN you enter into their site might not represent a real car nor even be a valid VIN. VIN validation is pretty easy using a simple formula and some of these sites won’t even do that for you.
This article is going to explore each of the current NMVTIS partners and assess how much each has its customer’s interests in mind compared to their own. Some do indeed get it right which makes me wonder why they can’t all be doing that.
The test data
As with most VINs, Ford VINs contain a sequential number in the last 6 digits. The first 11 characters contain a ‘model descriptor’. This model descriptor covers where it was manufactured as well as details on body style, engine and safety features. In any given model year, there will only be one car manufactured with a given sequential number and there are only so many other variations of the other values. So, for example, for sequential number 109059 there are four possible VINs depending on whether that car is a Mustang GT or Ecoboost and also whether it is a coupe or convertible. I happen to know that 109059 is an Ecoboost Coupe. The other three do not represent real cars –
- 1FA6P8TH5P5109059 – 2022 Ecoboost Coupe (real)
- 1FA6P8CF7P5109059 – 2022 GT Coupe (not real)
- 1FATP8FF9P5109059 – 2022 GT Convertible (not real)
- 1FATP8UH3P5109059 – 2022 Ecoboost Convertible (not real)
Only one of these can and should return a positive result from a service that has data on VINs. This was precisely the challenge of my 2022 Mustang VIN identification – which one of these four is a real car?
The testing approach
The approach to test these services was to use a set of VINs for cars that were several years old that were likely to have more records than recent cars. And to parallel that with VINs for “not real” cars with similar VINs such as those not real VINs above.
- 1FA6P8AM5H5202343 – 2017 V6 COUPE. This is a real car that I found for sale online. This VIN has 38 CarFax records and 21 Autocheck records.
- 1FA6P8CF7H5202343 – This is a fake VIN based on the above VIN but using coding for a GT Coupe. This VIN is not found on CarFax nor Autocheck.
- 1FA6P8CF0H5202343 – Invalid VIN, this VIN fails a simple check digit test. The ‘0’ is the 9th position should be a ‘7’.
- 1FA6P8TH6G5211440 – 2016 2.3L COUPE. This is a real car that I found for sale online. This VIN has 40 CarFax records.
- 1FA6P8CF8G5211440 – This is a fake VIN based on the above VIN but using coding for a GT Coupe. This VIN is not found on CarFax nor Autocheck.
- 1FATP8FF4H5203125 – 2017 GT CONVERTIBLE PREMIUM. This is a real car that I found for sale online. This VIN has 50 CarFax records and 72 Autocheck records.
- 1FATP8UH9H5203125 – This is a fake VIN based on the above VIN but using coding for a Ecoboost Convertible. This VIN is not found on CarFax nor Autocheck.
- 19XFC1F70GE215830 – 2016 Honda Civic EX (Salvage). This is a real car that I once owned and was totaled in an accident. This VIN has 31 CarFax records and 65 Autocheck records.
What follows is a review of the current NMVTIS data providers and how they fared relative to my real and fake test data. This is not a report on ease of use of those sites, on the ordering process, on the completeness of reporting data or on the cost of the reports. Although, the results might mention these factors as they sometimes can’t be ignored. The ordering of the sites in this list is that as presented in the list on the NMVTIS site.
For each site, I ran up to five tests. Fewer for tests where I didn’t subscribe to the service and more for those in which I did spend money and buy reports. For each site, I give a simple recommendation on whether I recommend it for use, caution on its use and that it might be skipped for most use cases and, lastly, identify those site which should be avoided due to poor practices.
Bumper – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. The results for searching on both real and fake VINs each took me to a screen indicating that “WE FOUND HISTORY RECORDS ON YOUR VEHICLE…”. There was no discernible way to tell the difference in the results for these two types of VINs and, for both, I was directed to proceed with the purchase process. When I clicked on View Full Report, I was taken through an unnecessarily complex process with the appearance of a search being performed. This process took a full 90 seconds to complete.
At the end of the search, I needed to agree to a statement that Bumper may not have the complete history of what I searched (obviously). This message was the same regardless of the VIN searched.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. The site failed to inform me that the VIN I entered was not valid. It skipped the screen indicating that “We found history records on your vehicle…” but continued into the process of performing the long, 90 second search and took me into the report buying process.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Failed. The purchased report on the fake VIN showed no indications that data was not found. It indicated things like “No accidents found” which is much different than “no data found”. To the reader, this could imply that data was actually checked.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
It is clear here that the emphasis was on selling me a report and then sorting out the details on my specific VIN after that sale was complete.
The animated search process which resulted in no information being added to the process was clearly just to get me invested in the process. There was literally no additional data presented after that search process. I have to conclude that it was just a facade that there was actual searching being done.
Though, the biggest issue here was allowing the purchase of a report for a VIN where it was not possible to find data and the report was not clear on the fact that nothing was found. Instead, it made proclamations made about “No title brands” which was technically true but was done where there was no underlying data on a title being found and being clear.
BeenVerified – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. This site failed to differentiate between a real and a fake VIN and provided the same result for both – a 90+ second search for data which concluded with asking me for my email address and then putting me into the purchase process.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. The site took me through the exact same process as the real VIN, searching, then asking for my email and then taking me to a purchase process and check out. All these were done without informing me that there was any issue with my VIN. The only sign that there was anything amiss was very subtle. On the screen where I was to enter my email address which normally displayed the year, make and model for valid VINs, there was none of those details filled in.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Failed. The purchased report on the fake VIN showed no indications that data was not found. It indicated things like “No accidents found” which is much different that “no data found”. To the consumer, this could imply that data was actually checked.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
Just like Bumper which is a related site, the focus here was on getting my money and sorting out my VIN search later.
The animated search process which resulted in no information being added to the process was clearly just to get me invested in the process. There was literally no additional data presented after this search process. It was just a facade that there was searching being done.
The fact that you can buy a report for a VIN with no data behind it is very bad and undermines the entire site and it’s value.
carsforsale – recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. The result of the search of a fake VIN dimmed the page and presented a message that “no information found for this VIN”. Performance of the search was among, if not, the best in these tests.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. Just like the fake VIN search, a search for an invalid VIN resulted in a dimmed page and a message that “no information found”.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This site gets a hearty recommendation. The site was fast and never asked me for payment. It only required me to register with my email address. I think giving up that information was a good trade for the information provided. I also searched for the salvage Civic that I had a VIN for. The results were spot on. The salvage title was reported and I even learned a couple things about that car that I had not known including the availability of some photos of the car when new when it was listed at the original dealer.
Vehicle History Report – recommended
This site is related to the previous site, carsforsale.com, so it is not surprising that it behaved similarly and even used the carsforsale logo in places.
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. A search for a real VIN led to a prompt for information requesting my email address. This was followed with a report generated for free. This report was identical to the carsforsale report even down to it including the carsforsale logo. The search for the fake VIN produced a message that “no information was found for this VIN.”
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. Just like the search for the fake VIN, a search for an invalid VIN produced the message “no information was found for this VIN”.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This site was amazing. It only required me to surrender my email address and name in order to get a free report. If you use a burner email address, there are little down sides to this site. The query to my salvage VIN produced the exact same report, logo and all, as carsforsale.com
CarVertical – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. Searching CarVertical for both real and fake VINs was pretty quick (6-9s) with only a little visual pageantry in the search but it produced the same screen regardless of the VIN. This screen was the purchase screen with no indication of what would be on the purchased report. Both results proclaimed “Success! We’ve detected this vehicle and its previous data records.” even when I knew one of those VINs couldn’t possible have any records. There was no confirmation that the car I searched and found was the car I was looking for with only “Ford” being listed as the vehicle it “found”.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. When searching for the known bad VIN, which failed a check digit test, I got the same screen as above indicating that “We’ve detected this vehicle and its previous data records.” and was directed to purchase a report.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Conclusion
Like some others, the goal of this site is to get you to purchases a report before any real validation on whether there is anything of value has been done. It’s a fairly quick search and not as bad as the others. But, the results of the search are inadequate confirming nothing about the VIN you entered. I will give them credit for not having a subscription model that locks you in. You can purchase just the one report.
I wouldn’t use this site unless I had a really good coupon code to get that price lower. The cost and the push to buy a report when data does not exist makes be believe that there are much better options in this list.
CheckThatVin – recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. The result for the fake VIN correctly informed me that there were no vehicles found. The valid VIN took me to the check out process. The search was done with only a little fanfare animation and was relative quick at around 4s from the search to the result. The successful search helpfully confirmed the year, make and model of the vehicle for which I was searching.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. The invalid VIN gave the same result as the fake VIN – a messages which confirmed the problem and allowed me to proceed with another VIN.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This is a straightforward site with no B.S. results. The search process was pretty quick and the results either confirmed the vehicle or alerted me to a problem.
clearvin – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. There were subtle differences between the good VIN result and the fake VIN result which gave clues that something was amiss with the fake VIN. But, a normal site customer could still be tricked by the fake VIN result and would probably purchase the report. The fake VIN result convincingly decoded the year, make and model. Perhaps most deceptive of all, it proclaimed “History Alert: This vehicle might have been damaged.”. It did this for both VINs and I would argue would do this for all VINs. I didn’t exhaustively confirm this but it presented this message for all VINs I tested.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. There was some VIN validation being done when I entered the VIN and the invalid VIN was identified as a problem and a report could not be generated.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Conclusion
It’s nice that it passed the invalid VIN test but there was just too much else wrong here. Foremost, the History Alert that there may be a problem. Wording and presentation are used to drive the customer to purchase a report even if there may be none. Given the cost at time of this writing, I’d skip this site.
epicvin – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. This was a fast site. There was a no nonsense search process that brought me to the result in just a few seconds. There was some good information provided, too. For my good VIN, I saw a picture of the car which I assume was from some sales history. The site also presented the last reported mileage. And, that there was an accident history.
The problem was with the fake VIN. I got another convincing screen but not with the same level of data I saw for the real VIN. Correctly, it can’t confirm anything for details such as accidents and/or mileage. The statement that “we found 4 history records on your vehicle” is misleading. It is likely that this “history” was the 4 safety recalls which I would argue are not history “on your vehicle.” For this reason, I feel like the result was deceptive and that this site failed this test.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. For the invalid VIN which failed the validity check, I was still brought to the page where I could purchase the report and that “we found 4 history records on your vehicle.”
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Failed. Taking money and generating a report for an invalid VIN where other sites can and do detect this as a VIN with no history is a huge fail. The report was clear that no records are found. This was fraudulent.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Failed. If generating a report for a fake VIN is bad, generating a report for an invalid VIN is even worse. The VIN I used was the one where the check digit fails to validate that the VIN was correct and, even if it were, this was a VIN with no history.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
I almost had added this site to my “not recommended” category based on the pre-purchase search process being not so bad. But, once I was able to generate a report for both fake and invalid VINs, this became tied for last place as my lowest ranked site. Taking money, or as in my case, report credits for these reports which where generated where no data could be available was downright wrong.
VinGurus – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. There were some niceties on the report preview – the photo and indication that there were more photos if I purchased; the summary of owners and sales records and the red flag on the accident.
Speaking of red flags, I saw some on the report preview for the fake VIN. Most alarmingly, was the “Success. We found records for your <vin>” message. From seeing this same report preview detail on the sister site epicvin, I knew this might just be the recall data on the 2017 Mustang GT. Also, “title history is available”. Really?
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. I got the same page as the fake VIN above making it appear that valid data would be available on the report. “Success. We found records for your <vin>”.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Conclusion
This is a sister site to epicvin so it was not surprising on how this site performed and where it failed. It was very fast in getting me to my results quickly. But, it failed on detecting VINs that were not going to produce a valuable report instead pushing me to buy a report above all else.
Another sign of the quality (or lack thereof) with Vin Gurus is that the web page title for me was always “Records for 2013 Lexus LS 460”. I searched only on Ford Mustangs. I also tried it in different browsers (Chrome and Firefox) in order to confirm it was not a caching issue.
VINinspect – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. While I got a solid result for a good VIN which it produced very quickly, this site failed on the fake VIN. The fake VIN report preview was lacking in detail compared to the good VIN but still allowed me to proceed to check out. It pretty much stated that there was no information available without saying that and thankfully, unlike it’s sister sites epicvin and vingurus, it didn’t positively state that history was available. But, since I was still directed to purchase, this site failed.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. Just like the fake VIN, an invalid VIN gave me the same page where I was directed to purchase a report.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Failed. This was not quite as bad as the epicvin failure on the same fake VIN but it is pretty damn close. This site provided a report for my fake VIN. The wording indicated that there was “no data found” but in places substituted “no problems found”. While this is technically true (no data found = no problems found), it would have been accurate to only refer to the lack of data and not to a lack of problems when no data is found.
Relative to being charged for this bogus report, I was not. The site apologized for not “finding the information you were looking for” and credited me with a free report. But it was not clear that “all information” that I was looking for was not found as right below this message was a report.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Failed. Similar to the epinvin report case, I did get a report for the invalid VIN. As with the fake VIN case on this site, I also got a credit, an informational message and a report that is vague about the validity of the data provided.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This is a yet another sister site to epicvin and failed similarly by not explicitly telling me that there was nothing to report on for my incorrect VINs. I applaud the quick performance of this and the other two sites and the presentation of photos (when available) and some of the history details. But, there was simply no excuse for pushing me to checkout for VINs with no reports and for generating reports with no data even when it was giving me report credits for it’s failure to find data and at the same time providing me with a report.
GoodCar – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. The search results between good VIN and fake VIN were indiscernible. Both looked like they were valid cars. Worse, the fake VIN was not detected and encourages you to buy the report. There were not any clues. All categories of information stated “Information available”.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed? This passed but it then failed as it suggested a VIN that, when I clicked it, took me through the search process and then had the same issues as the fake VIN tested previously. It was recommending a VIN just by recomputing the check digit and not checking it.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase report for fake VIN
Failed. GoodCar let me purchase a report for a fake VIN. The report was, not surprisingly, sparse. But, it is possible that, with how it was presented, it could be interpreted as real data. On the Title search they left room that there was a chance it just wasn’t reported correctly (emphasis mine)-
Our search returned no title records for this car. This is usually the case with brand new cars that have had no prior owners and are currently not titled. Our live database received information from all titling authorities in the United States. However, there is always a slim chance of misreporting or delayed reporting.
No accidents and salvage records might lead to increased confidence that this VIN is OK. There was also the list of problem checks for issues such as flood, fire and hail damage. All were listed as not issues.
Obviously, no issues can and should exist for a fake VIN. The issue here was that this VIN should have been identified as not being found. The absence of data was not always a positive indicator of no issues. Other NMVTIS partner sites can identify this VIN as having no history. Goodcar should as well.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
Despite the name, this is not a ‘good’ site. It failed where many others do in not prechecking VINs before asking for my money. It used a fake progress bar to help reassure me that some actual searching was happening. Even though it was only about 20 seconds of wait, it was still frustrating as it was unnecessary.
Most alarming was the generation of a report for a VIN that had no data leading to the possibility that it appears real and also taking money for a report when no data exists.
InfoTracer – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, real vs fake VINs
Failed. The search results for both the good and fake VINs were identical. Both proclaimed “Search Successful! Access Your Full Report” and, for each item on the list, indicated “Information Available”. All this while giving me the immediate capability to order the full report for a charge. There was no indication that the fake VIN would not have a report.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. The result for the invalid VIN was exactly the same as the other two results. The site stated “Search Successful!” and encouraged me to go ahead with the report purchase.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase report for fake VIN
Failed. Just like GoodCar, InfoTracer let me purchase a report for a fake VIN. It had all the same issues as GoodCar presenting the lack of information as information. On the Title search they had the same message that there was a slim chance it just wasn’t reported correctly (emphasis mine) –
Our search returned no title records for this car. This is usually the case with brand new cars that have had no prior owners and are currently not titled. Our live database received information from all titling authorities in the United States. However, there is always a slim chance of misreporting or delayed reporting.
No accidents and salvage records might lead to increased confidence that this VIN is OK. There was also the list of problem checks for issues such as flood, fire and hail damage. All were listed as “N/A” which was different from GoodCar but was still vague. “N/A” could mean “Not Available” or “Not Applicable”. The former might be a flag that there was something amiss. The later might be interpreted to confirm there are no applicable issues.
Other NMVTIS partner sites identify this VIN as having no history. Infotracer should as well.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
Site performance was not horrible but the search process was slowed for about 10s while I had to watch a progress bar. There was not a lot of good here. No VIN checking or report availability checking. It was full steam ahead to the purchase process. I would not pick this site for any search of any type.
Most alarming was the generation of a report for a VIN that has no data leading to the possibility of interpretation that the VIN is real and also taking money for a report when no data exists.
recordsfinder – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. Like so many of the others, there was no way to tell the fake VIN will not give you a valuable report. “Your Vehicle History Report Is Ready” appeared for any VIN, real or fake. The details on the chart were blurred to obscure any hints that there may or may not be any records. Looking closely, the values being blurred were literally X’s (XX,XXX miles). The wait process on the search was a very long 45 seconds. This was much too long to gather X’s from the database.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Failed. Not much to say here. An invalid VIN gave the same screen indicating the “Report is Ready” and the pushing me to purchase.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase report for fake VIN
Not tested. This site is a service of InfoPay, INC. As such, I didn’t expect it to have different results from the other two in this article which are also related to InfoPay, INC which were GoodCar and InfoTracer.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested.
Conclusion
Goodcar, infotracer and recordsfinder all share the same parent company. Given this, it was no surprise of the limitations with this one. Stay away. It was all oriented to get me to and through the purchase process. There are better options.
StateRecords.org – avoid this site
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. The search was “successful” for both. Indications displayed are “View Full Report” for all the elements regardless of the VIN, good or bad. The search process was over 45 seconds of multiple progress bars working in unison. The funny thing is that if I took the URL of the ultimate report page, which contains the VIN, and opened it again in a new browser from scratch (no cache), it opened quickly. The whole search thing was clearly just a facade. There was no doubt with this one that there was no searching; just animating.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. Surprisingly, the invalid VIN was flagged as “No VIN Found”. Mind you, I still needed to wait the 45+ seconds through the fake search process to get to that message but kudos to this site for not trying to push me to buy a report.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase report for fake VIN
Failed. On the NMVTIS, this site is grouped with the three sites from InfoPay, INC; GoodCar, InfoTracer and recordsfinder. On the InfoPay, INC site itself, this site is not listed as one of their “brands” nor does this site contain any references to InfoPay as a parent site. It is likely one of their affiliates as the report provided was identical to the InfoTracer report less the logo used. I tested the fake VIN which got what this site calls a “premium” report. I did try to test other VINs and for those got the regular VIN report which was really just a VIN decode and generic information given the year, make and model such as specifications.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
Despite the success with detecting the invalid VIN, this site is a no go. Long search times and, more importantly, deceiving search results were too many strikes against it. Interestingly, the link from the NMVTIS site to the staterecords.org site takes you to a main page where it is not even evident that this site does VIN searches. The home page asks for name, city and state as in a generic people search. I had to do some work to find the VIN search URL which I am linking directly in the header for this section.
The purchase of the VIN report brought to light that, while this site is related to the other InfoPay sites, it is much worse and considers what those other sites consider as their standard report as the StateRecords premium report. For this, they upcharge for it even under their unlimited report plan. Worst of all, it is the same garbage report for an invalid VIN. I really felt really scammed on this site.
titlecheck.us – recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. This site correctly and quickly identified the fake VIN as one with no records directing me to check and re-enter the VIN in order to proceed. There was no option to purchase with the fake VIN.
The real VIN took me to a screen where I could purchase the report only stating the NMVTIS records have been located. While I’d like more information, I am fine with this after seeing the result for a VIN with no records. I had confidence in buying this report.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. The invalid VIN had the same result as the fake VIN….try again.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This site is pretty bare bones. But, it’s fast and does not misrepresent anything. I’d day go ahead and use it.
VinAudit – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. Report previews for both the good VIN and the fake VIN were nearly identical with each informing me that “We found history records on your vehicle…” which could not be true for my fake VIN. The report overview listed the types of information that would be available on the report but there was no clue to the actual presence or quantity of such information. There was a good solid 30 seconds of progress bar graphics while the report was being “prepared”.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. The initial screen where I entered the VIN immediately flagged the incorrect VIN without delay. Nicely done.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost and the misleading results on the prior tests, I opted not to test this site further.
Conclusion
This site passed the invalid VIN check but I still can’t recommend this site due to the ambiguity of the results for the real vs. fake VINs which were both technically correct VINs in that they pass the check digit check but do not both represent actual cars.
VINCheck.info – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Failed. The report preview was not different between real and fake VINs. The statement “Official NMVTIS Data: Records Found” appeared for both real and fake VINs.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on VIN
Failed. The statement “Official NMVTIS Data: Records Found” appeared for the invalid VIN.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
This bills itself as a free VIN report. The information offered is nothing more than general information that can be gathered once you know the VIN of a car such as how it decodes, safety recalls and value information. The report can contain “sales records” which really just appeared to be the dates that the vehicle was found to be on sale. I have no idea, really.
In order to get real NMVTIS data you need to move to the monthly subscription. After dealing with the convoluted process of navigating the free data, this was a hard pass for me. This site just seems to spam you with meaningless data that you can find elsewhere and probably already should know if you are deep enough into the car buying process to be checking history with VIN. There are plenty of other options. Skip this one.
VINdata – not recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. While I got a similar page for each the good and fake VINs informing that “We have VINData Records for your VIN”, there was no option to purchase a report for the fake VIN; only a Window Sticker. So, evaluating this on the availability of NMVTIS data only, this gets a pass.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. The invalid VIN was caught before we are presented with any option to purchase. The site was nice enough to recommend checking for possible errors which might have occurred when I typed the VIN such as the confusion of the letter O and the number 0.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost I opted not to test this site further.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Not Tested. Due to the prohibitive report cost I opted not to test this site further.
Conclusion
Performance was good on this site and I was not pushed into a VIN report when none existed. For the fake VIN I did get an offer for a Window Sticker. This was suspicious and, given the cost, I recommend that you should take your business elsewhere.
vinsmart – recommended
Test 1: as anonymous user, search on real vs fake VINs
Passed. vinsmart rightly flagged my fake VIN and didn’t let me proceed.
Test 2: as anonymous user, search on invalid VIN
Passed. Another good result on the invalid VIN. I got the same as the fake VIN and could not proceed to order a report.
Test 3: as registered user, purchase a report for fake VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the fake VIN.
Test 4: as registered user, purchase a report for an invalid VIN
Passed. I was not allowed to purchase a report when using the invalid VIN.
Test 5: as registered user, generate report for a valid VIN
Passed. This is the report.
Conclusion
The site was quick and there was good auditing of VINs. There was no hard sell here. Recommended.
Conclusion
After all this, you might ask the question – what harm could come from any of these issues? As long as you enter the right VIN then there are no problems. Right? And, in the process, shouldn’t you be double checking that anyway?
Wrong.
We all make mistakes and, while you will probably see the red flags in the report purchase process that you are using the wrong VIN, some of the NMVTIS providers do not go far enough in preventing you from buying a report when they should be. If one of them can do it right (and several do), they all should be. You should not be able to but a report for a fake or invalid VIN. Reports should not be generated when there is no underlying data. NMVTIS should be auditing their partners and, in addition to preventing fraud in the car buying process, they should also be concerned about fraud (and confusion) in the reporting buying process.
My recommendation is to use NMVTIS as an early look at the cars you are considering. With the right provider, it is fast and cheap (or free) to broadly look at a number of cars. But, don’t consider it the single source of truth. For any car you are seriously considering, check the Carfax and/or Autocheck reports. Run the NHTSA VIN decoder and recall check. Check the National Insurance Crime Bureau’s VIN Check. Google the VIN.