Independent research. A clearer software perspective.
Business SoftwareConsensus Index

THE RESEARCH LIBRARY

Marketing Automation & Email Marketing Software research

Compare Marketing Automation & Email Marketing Software through independent AI consensus studies. Start with your software situation, then explore the providers and evidence.

15published studiesUnderstand the methodology

THE CATEGORY VIEW

Which providers show up most consistently?

A broader look across the published Marketing Automation & Email Marketing Software studies. Compare recommendation prominence, then find the research for your situation.

Explore individual studies
Studies included
15
Usable AI responses
104
Platforms represented
7
Entities qualifying
37
Marketing Automation & Email Marketing Software: leading category rankings. Scores measure AI recommendation prominence across published studies.
RankProvider / published entityConsensus scoreStudy coverageAI mentions
01Brevo
18.3 / 100
8 / 15 studies30 / 10428.9% of usable responses
02ActiveCampaign
17.9 / 100
8 / 15 studies30 / 10428.9% of usable responses
03MailerLite
16.4 / 100
8 / 15 studies28 / 10426.9% of usable responses
04Kit
15.2 / 100
4 / 15 studies21 / 10420.2% of usable responses
05HubSpot
15.1 / 100
9 / 15 studies31 / 10429.8% of usable responses
06Klaviyo
12.9 / 100
7 / 15 studies22 / 10421.1% of usable responses
07Adobe Journey Optimizer B2B Edition
9.9 / 100
2 / 15 studies13 / 10412.5% of usable responses
08Mailchimp
9.5 / 100
6 / 15 studies18 / 10417.3% of usable responses
09Postmark
8.6 / 100
3 / 15 studies10 / 1049.6% of usable responses
10Mailgun
8.5 / 100
2 / 15 studies11 / 10410.6% of usable responses
See all 37 qualifying entities
Marketing Automation & Email Marketing Software: remaining category rankings. Scores measure AI recommendation prominence across published studies.
RankProvider / published entityConsensus scoreStudy coverageAI mentions
11Braze
8.5 / 100
4 / 15 studies13 / 10412.5% of usable responses
12systeme.io
8.3 / 100
3 / 15 studies12 / 10411.5% of usable responses
13Omnisend
8.1 / 100
3 / 15 studies12 / 10411.5% of usable responses
14Customer.io
7.2 / 100
3 / 15 studies9 / 1048.7% of usable responses
15Twilio SendGrid
7.0 / 100
2 / 15 studies9 / 1048.7% of usable responses
16Sender
7.0 / 100
3 / 15 studies9 / 1048.7% of usable responses
176sense
6.7 / 100
2 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
18Salesforce Marketing Cloud
6.7 / 100
2 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
19Salesforce Marketing Cloud Account Engagement
6.4 / 100
2 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
20Constant Contact
6.0 / 100
3 / 15 studies11 / 10410.6% of usable responses
21Mailtrap
6.0 / 100
2 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
22GetResponse
5.9 / 100
4 / 15 studies12 / 10411.5% of usable responses
23Amazon SES
5.8 / 100
2 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
24Oracle Eloqua
5.7 / 100
2 / 15 studies9 / 1048.7% of usable responses
25EmailOctopus
4.9 / 100
2 / 15 studies7 / 1046.7% of usable responses
26Attentive
4.4 / 100
2 / 15 studies6 / 1045.8% of usable responses
27Postscript
4.2 / 100
2 / 15 studies7 / 1046.7% of usable responses
28Moosend
3.3 / 100
4 / 15 studies7 / 1046.7% of usable responses
29Iterable
3.2 / 100
4 / 15 studies6 / 1045.8% of usable responses
30Drip
2.7 / 100
2 / 15 studies5 / 1044.8% of usable responses
31Zoho Campaigns
2.6 / 100
2 / 15 studies7 / 1046.7% of usable responses
32Campaign Monitor
2.5 / 100
4 / 15 studies5 / 1044.8% of usable responses
33Loops
2.0 / 100
2 / 15 studies5 / 1044.8% of usable responses
34Sequenzy
2.0 / 100
3 / 15 studies4 / 1043.9% of usable responses
35AWeber
1.9 / 100
4 / 15 studies8 / 1047.7% of usable responses
36Flodesk
1.6 / 100
2 / 15 studies3 / 1042.9% of usable responses
37Sendlane
1.1 / 100
2 / 15 studies3 / 1042.9% of usable responses

How to read this. A first-place recommendation earns 10 points, second place 9, down to 1 point for tenth. An absence earns zero. We average within each platform, then across platforms and studies, and scale to 100. Each study has equal weight.

Only valid ranking responses count. Qualification requires at least two studies and three response appearances. Published names are grouped by case and punctuation; distinct name variants remain separate. A broad score can favor providers serving many software needs. It is not a customer rating, service guarantee, or assessment of workload compatibility.

Research dates: 2026-10-01 to 2026-10-02. Read the ranking methodology →

Find a study for your software needs

Showing 1–15 of 15 results

Independent research · Open methodology