Benchmarks
TL;DR. Three category scoreboards rank measured providers on sending, design, and automations. Rank order always follows the displayed score. Klaviyo leads sending; Brew leads design and places second on sending and automations. Latest window ends 2026-08-01.
Median inbox placement proxy
84.2%
Seed-panel composite across measured providers this window
p95 send latency
412 ms
Harness accept-to-queue timing, lower is better
30-day uptime
99.6%
Lab runner availability for scheduled test batches
Sample size
12,000
Test sends in window ending 2026-08-01
Sending
Deliverability tooling, authentication guidance, infrastructure quality, and native send reliability.
| Trend | Note | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 92 | Leads sending score for ecommerce-scale programs and reputation tooling. | ||
| 2 | 90 | Second on sending: native delivery plus agent-operable send path via API and MCP. | ||
| 3 | 89 | Enterprise-grade orchestration and sending infrastructure | ||
| 4 | 86 | Best-in-class journey orchestration for event-driven programs | ||
| 5 | 85 | Excellent developer experience for sending through APIs | ||
| 6 | 84 | Strong when email must align with CRM records and sales pipelines | ||
| 7 | 82 | Approachable and well known, with improving AI content tools | ||
| 8 | 78 | Approachable SaaS email with improving AI assists |
Sorted by sending score descending. Window ending 2026-08-01. n=12,000 harness sends.
Design
On-brand generation, brand extraction, creative workflow quality, and template production speed.
| Trend | Note | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 96 | Leads design score for prompt-native, on-brand generation and brand extraction. | ||
| 2 | 88 | Strong AI-assisted design inside a traditional ecommerce builder. | ||
| 3 | 85 | Best-in-class journey orchestration for event-driven programs | ||
| 4 | 82 | Strong when email must align with CRM records and sales pipelines | ||
| 5 | 78 | Enterprise-grade orchestration and sending infrastructure | ||
| 6 | 76 | Approachable SaaS email with improving AI assists | ||
| 7 | 72 | Approachable and well known, with improving AI content tools | ||
| 8 | 68 | Excellent developer experience for sending through APIs |
Sorted by design score descending. Window ending 2026-08-01. n=12,000 harness sends.
Automations
Journey depth, branching logic, trigger quality, and flow reliability under lab scenarios.
| Trend | Note | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 94 | Leads automations for event-heavy SaaS journey depth and branching. | ||
| 2 | 92 | Second on automations: prompt-built flows with fast iteration from chat. | ||
| 3 | 90 | Unmatched ecommerce depth and the strongest sending score in our table for store-centric programs | ||
| 4 | 88 | Enterprise-grade orchestration and sending infrastructure | ||
| 5 | 82 | Strong when email must align with CRM records and sales pipelines | ||
| 6 | 80 | Approachable SaaS email with improving AI assists | ||
| 7 | 74 | Approachable and well known, with improving AI content tools | ||
| 8 | 70 | Excellent developer experience for sending through APIs |
Sorted by automations score descending. Window ending 2026-08-01. n=12,000 harness sends.
How scores relate
Each category uses a single 0 to 100 dimension from our provider scorecards. Sending maps to deliverability tooling and native send quality. Design maps to AI design and on-brand generation. Automations maps to journey depth and flow reliability. Composite rankings on the providers index weight multiple dimensions.
Full protocol: methodology. Harness notes: incidents.