whats-best.ai

Email Marketing & Newsletter

Omnisend

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Omnisend, UAB · www.omnisend.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The CRM Manager

Weighted verdict

Owns the lifecycle programme and measures it. Wants segmentation on real behaviour, journeys that branch, and testing that reports significance rather than a bigger number. Treats a tool that can only broadcast as a mailing list with invoicing.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The CRM Manager

Campaigns & automation

How this is scored

Building the mail and the journey around it: editor, templates, segmentation, triggered sequences, A/B testing.

0 — One-off broadcasts from a fixed template; no segmentation and no automation of any kind.

3 — A drag-and-drop editor and simple list segmentation, but automation is a single welcome mail and there is no testing.

5 — Reusable templates, attribute and behaviour segmentation, multi-step automations on common triggers, and subject-line A/B testing.

8 — A visual journey builder with branching on behaviour and data, dynamic content per segment, send-time optimisation, and testing that reports significance rather than raw counts.

10 — Journeys treat the whole lifecycle: event-driven entry from other systems, branching on any attribute or event, holdout groups for measurement, and automations a marketer can read months later without a diagram.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

The automation editor is a real journey builder — conditional splits, exit conditions, lifecycle stages, frequency capping, custom-event triggers and email/SMS/push paths in one flow — and behavioural segmentation plus AI send-time picking are documented, with pre-built cart abandonment, browse abandonment and win-back flows showing lifecycle thinking. What I found no public information on is testing that reports statistical significance: the A/B copy stops at which channel, incentive or subject line "drives you most conversions", and holdout groups go unmentioned, so it falls short of the highest level. 1 3 4 12

Report an error

Deliverability infrastructure

How this is scored

Whether the mail arrives — authentication, sending reputation, bounce and complaint handling — judged on what the vendor documents rather than the inbox rate it advertises.

0 — No documentation of authentication or bounce handling; deliverability appears only as a marketing number.

3 — SPF and DKIM setup documented, but no DMARC guidance, no stated bounce policy and shared sending only.

5 — SPF, DKIM and DMARC documented with a custom sending domain, automatic hard-bounce suppression, and complaint-loop handling stated.

8 — The above plus dedicated-IP options with a documented warm-up, seed or inbox-placement testing, engagement-based sunsetting, and published guidance on list hygiene.

10 — Deliverability is operated as a service: reputation monitoring surfaced to the customer, per-domain and per-ISP diagnostics, enforced authentication before first send, and postmaster or blocklist handling the vendor documents doing on the customer's behalf.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

Authentication is documented properly — SPF, DKIM and DMARC all required valid before a domain can send, in-app SPF error diagnosis, subdomain signing — alongside a dedicated-IP recommendation with a 2–4 week warm-up schedule and genuinely useful hygiene guidance like the 6–12 month engagement window and keeping complaints under 0.1%. The captured pages are silent, though, on hard-bounce suppression, complaint-loop handling and seed or inbox-placement testing, and those operational pieces are what separate good documentation from operated deliverability. 5 6

Report an error

List ownership, import & exit

How this is scored

Whether the list and its history remain the sender's: import with attributes intact, full export including engagement history, deletion that executes, and no metering that prices leaving out of reach.

0 — Export is addresses only; engagement history, segments and automations cannot leave.

3 — CSV import and export of subscriber fields, but engagement history and unsubscribe state are not exportable.

5 — Full subscriber export including custom attributes, subscription status and unsubscribe state, plus API access sufficient to sync elsewhere.

8 — Everything exportable in open formats — subscribers, engagement history, campaigns and templates — with documented deletion of a subscriber across all records, and no export throttling.

10 — Exit is a documented feature: full-fidelity export of the whole account, contractual data return, deletion that is evidenced rather than asserted, and migration tooling in both directions.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

Import is well designed — opt-in and opt-out dates map as default properties, duplicates update rather than duplicate, and export carries subscription status, consent, custom properties, tags and even total spent. But the export surface is contacts-only: engagement history, campaigns and templates have no documented way out, scheduled exports are not supported, and documented deletion appears only contractually at end of service with a certificate. The free five-day migration that rebuilds flows is help arriving, not an exit path. 2 9 10

Report an error

Integrations & API

How this is scored

The connection surface a newsletter lives on: shop and CRM systems, events in and out, webhooks, and an API somebody can build against without a partner agreement.

0 — No API and no named integrations; the list is maintained by CSV upload.

3 — A handful of native integrations and a read-mostly API, with no webhooks and no documented rate limits.

5 — Named integrations for common shop and CRM systems, a documented REST API with keys, and webhooks for the core subscriber events.

8 — Maintained bidirectional integrations with named systems including at least one major shop platform, event webhooks with retries, documented rate limits, and a sandbox.

10 — The tool is a component rather than a destination: transactional and marketing sending on one API, events flowing both directions, versioned API with a deprecation policy, and integrations the vendor maintains rather than lists.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

Named native platforms include Shopify, BigCommerce, WooCommerce and Wix, and the API key model is unusually strong — scoped permissions across campaigns, contacts, orders, products, carts and events, unlimited keys, revocation, and setup wizards for recognised apps. But the captured pages give me no webhooks, no documented rate limits, no sandbox and no versioning or deprecation policy, and "280+ integrations" is a count I cannot inspect rather than a maintained surface I can rely on. 1 11 12

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Where subscriber data and behavioural tracking live, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors touch the send. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which in this category is heavily.

0 — US vendor and contracting entity, US hosting, subprocessors unnamed; subscriber behaviour leaves the EU with no stated basis.

3 — EU hosting offered as an option or for storage only, while sending, tracking or support access remains non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent.

5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — sending infrastructure, analytics, support tooling — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.

8 — EU or DACH hosting with a named data-centre provider, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting, sending and every subprocessor in the EU, certification published, and no transfer that needs a Schrems II argument to survive.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

A Lithuanian entity with a Vilnius address and incorporated Controller-to-Processor standard clauses are real, but the DPA describes a group that also includes a London company and a Charleston, South Carolina company without stating which entity contracts with a given customer, and the subprocessor names themselves did not appear in what was captured — only their purposes. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency or ownership, and for a buyer who weighs this heavily, standard clauses as the only stated safeguard are not something I can score kindly. 2

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a sender can compute the real invoice for their list size and send volume — including overage, extra domains and automation limits — from public pages alone.

0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.

3 — A headline price per contact tier exists, but send limits, overage rates or the tier where automation begins are not stated.

5 — Contact-tier prices public with the billing period stated and send limits given, but at least one commonly needed capability sits in an unpriced tier or add-on.

8 — Every tier priced publicly with contact and volume limits, overage rates, feature boundaries and VAT treatment stated; only genuinely custom volume lacks a number.

10 — Complete price computability: a calculator producing the annual invoice for a given list size and send frequency, including overage, additional domains and dedicated IPs.

Report an error

The CRM Manager

What is public is a free tier with full access and no credit card, a claim of paying "up to 35%" less than Klaviyo for comparable features, and a $79-ROI-per-dollar marketing figure — none of which lets me compute an invoice. A monthly email limit is implied by the note that confirmation emails do not count toward it, but the limit itself, contact-tier prices, overage rates and VAT treatment never appear on the captured pages. 1 3 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Sources (12)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.omnisend.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage www.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Campaigns & automation — found from sitemap www.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Campaigns & automation — found from sitemap www.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Deliverability infrastructure — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Deliverability infrastructure — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Consent, proof & tracking limits — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Consent, proof & tracking limits — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  9. 9 List ownership, import & exit — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  10. 10 List ownership, import & exit — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap support.omnisend.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →