Should you use PhoneInfoga?
Consider PhoneInfoga for supervised phone-number research when you can configure scanners, inspect results and own repairs. The upstream README describes the project as stable but unmaintained and says upcoming bugs will not be fixed. The sandbox record also leaves deployment unresolved: its successful stored build status conflicts with captured output reporting missing browser assets.
What the recorded run establishes
The stored October 2, 2026 sandbox run examined commit 55807b0. The full recorded commit is 55807b05b753dab7bc6fe67403ca385668dda179. The container used golang:1.24-bookworm, 3 CPUs and 8 GB of memory.
Installation recorded success in 36 seconds with 229 dependencies. The build step recorded exit code 0 after 9 seconds, but its captured output includes web/client.go:14:12: pattern client/dist/*: no matching files found followed by vet-exit:1. A usable build was not established.
The raw test tail reports missing embedded browser assets. It names setup failures for github.com/sundowndev/phoneinfoga/v2, github.com/sundowndev/phoneinfoga/v2/cmd and github.com/sundowndev/phoneinfoga/v2/web. These are package setup failures, not evidence that individual test assertions failed. Other packages have successful result lines, and several directories report no test files.
The test step recorded exit code 1 after 110 seconds. Stored parser summaries report 18 passed, 7 failed and 25 total, but do not establish unique or exhaustive test counts. The tail repeats package result lines; counting them again would not reconcile the aggregate. No new execution or complete-log reconciliation was performed.
The record does not establish a completed phone-number scan, working external integration, browser session or API deployment. It contains no audit result, so dependency scan coverage is unknown.
The MrKeyoor testing methodology explains the site's approach to sandbox provenance and command outcomes. Its supplied October 31, 2026 text does not establish which procedure version the October 2 run used.
Documented capabilities and limits
The PhoneInfoga README describes gathering basic information for international numbers, including country, area, carrier and line type. It lists external APIs, phone books and search engines as sources for further investigation, alongside a browser interface, REST API and Go modules. These are documented capabilities; the recorded run did not validate those workflows.
PhoneInfoga does not claim to provide relevant or verified data. Its documentation also rules out real-time tracking, precise phone location and phone hacking. Treat returned results as leads requiring corroboration before drawing an identity conclusion.
The README says scanners must be configured for the tool to be effective. Before adoption, identify the scanners your investigation needs and validate those integrations in your intended environment. Investigate the missing embedded assets before evaluating the CLI or browser workflow. The supplied record contains no tested repair procedure.
Maintenance is part of the decision
Both the current README and the README at the recorded commit describe PhoneInfoga as stable but unmaintained and warn that upcoming bugs will not be fixed. Adopting teams should plan to diagnose and repair problems themselves.
The supplied v2.11.0 changelog lists REST API scan options and Docker build fixes; the sandbox record concerns commit 55807b0 and does not validate those release changes.
Alternatives depend on your starting point
Ignorant checks whether a phone number is used on supported sites. Its README supports considering it for focused account-presence checks. The supplied evidence does not establish equivalent number metadata or deployment features. Ignorant was not tested in this review.
Maigret searches for accounts by username. Its README describes gathering information from account pages. Consider it when you already have a username to investigate, including one found during phone-number research. Maigret was not tested in this review.
How to read the ratings
The ratings assess setup, documentation, community support and maturity separately. On this five-point editorial rubric, 1 means substantial demonstrated obstacles, 2 means material limitations, 3 means mixed evidence, 4 means strong evidence with bounded gaps, and 5 requires broad validation for the intended use. These judgments are not benchmarks or security assurances.
Setup receives 3 for mixed evidence: installation recorded success, but contradictory build output and package setup failures leave a usable deployment unvalidated. Short command durations do not establish ease of setup.
Documentation receives 4 because the README explicitly states capabilities, configuration requirements, investigative limits and maintenance status. This assessment covers that introductory guidance. The supplied Swagger extract contains only its interface label, so API reference completeness was not verified.
Community support receives 2 because upstream explicitly disclaims future fixes. Adoption and contributor responsiveness were not measured. Maturity receives 3 because the maintainer describes the project as stable while the recorded run exposes unresolved setup failures. Deployment readiness and external-provider reliability over time were not validated.