Email Marketing & Newsletter
Sender
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel 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 SIA Sender · www.sender.net
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 panel's verdict
Sender, an email marketing platform operated by UAB Sender.lt, scores highest on campaign and automation at 8: a drag-and-drop journey builder with eleven trigger types, custom events via API or Zapier, If/Else branching on opens, clicks and purchases, and A/B testing with a statistical-significance calculator. Integrations score 6-7 on well-engineered webhooks — eight topics including bounces, HMAC signing with a rotatable secret, retries on timeout — plus a documented bearer-token API and connectors such as Shopify, WooCommerce and PrestaShop. Outside pricing, sovereignty scores lowest at 3-4: the compliance page's 'hosted in the European Union by default' claim appears only in marketing copy, while the privacy policy says servers sit in 'a highly secure server environment' with no location named, and we found no subprocessor list beyond website-form widgets. Consent and proof scores 4: double opt-in is documented as an automation you assemble rather than a default. Judges spread at most one point (deliverability 5-6, list data control 5-6, integrations 6-7, sovereignty 3-4) — no real disagreement. The only public price figure is the Free Forever plan's 15,000 emails per month.
Speaks for it
- Drag-and-drop journey builder with eleven trigger types, custom events fired via API or Zapier, and If/Else branching on opens, clicks and purchases
- A/B testing with a statistical-significance calculator, including split testing of whole workflows and send times
- Webhooks across eight topics, including bounces, with HMAC signing, a rotatable secret, retries on timeout and failure monitoring
- SPF, DKIM and DMARC documented down to exact record values with a re-check button, plus automatic hard-bounce suppression and soft-bounce retry
- Consent checkbox that blocks form submission until checked, with the consent action, signup source and timestamp recorded on the subscriber profile
Held against it
- EU-hosting-by-default claim appears only in compliance-page marketing copy, while the privacy policy describes servers as sitting in 'a highly secure server environment' with no location or hosting provider named
- No published subprocessor list found beyond Google reCAPTCHA and Cloudflare Turnstile on the vendor's website forms
- Double opt-in is documented as an automation assembled from a group trigger and a link-click condition rather than a built-in default
- No public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated IP options, warm-up or inbox-placement testing behind the advertised 'up to 99% email deliverability'
- No public information on switching open and click tracking off, on versioned consent wording retrievable per subscriber, or on exporting engagement history and campaigns
Best for
- You run a shop on Shopify, WooCommerce, PrestaShop or Jumpseller and want purchase-triggered journeys like cart abandonment and post-purchase flows
- You build on an API and want event-driven automation entry, with custom events fired from your systems via API or Zapier
- You rely on A/B testing with statistical-significance readouts across subject lines, content, send times and whole workflows
- You want a list that leaves intact — contact fields, subscription status, groups, custom fields and activity dates exported in CSV or Excel, filterable by segment
Avoid if
- You need a corroborated EU-residency posture — a named hosting provider and a published subprocessor list — before entrusting a subscriber list
- You require double opt-in as a built-in default rather than an automation you assemble yourself
- You need to build on documented complaint-loop handling, dedicated IP options and warm-up rather than the advertised 'up to 99% email deliverability' figure
- You need to take full engagement history, past campaigns and templates with you on exit — the migration service is documented for arriving, not for leaving
The scores
Campaigns & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
A visual drag-and-drop builder with If/Else conditions that branch on clicks, opens and purchases, eleven trigger types plus custom events fired via API or Zapier, and segmentation on engagement and any profile field — this is a real journey tool, not a broadcaster. The A/B testing layer is what wins me over: a statistical significance calculator that says when a winner is reliable, split testing of workflows, and testing of send times and delays. I found no public information on holdout groups for measurement, so I stop below the very top. 3 4 5
The Deliverability Engineer
A visual drag-and-drop journey builder with eleven trigger types plus custom events fired via API or Zapier, If/Else branching on opens, clicks and purchases, and segmentation by location, engagement and any profile field. A/B testing covers subject lines, content, send times and whole workflows, and a statistical significance calculator tells you when a winner is reliable instead of raw counts. I found no public information on holdout groups for measurement, which is the one thing short of the very top of the scale here. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
A visual drag-and-drop builder with If/Else branching on opens, clicks and purchases, eleven trigger types plus custom events fired via API or Zapier, and A/B testing with a statistical significance calculator and send-time testing is genuinely the journey craft I want to see. Holdout groups for lifecycle measurement are the one further step, and we found no public information on those. 3 4 5
The Shop Owner
The visual builder branches on behaviour — if a contact clicks, opens or buys — with eleven trigger types including purchases plus custom events I can fire from my shop through the API or Zapier, and the ready-made cart-abandonment and post-purchase flows are exactly the revenue work I buy this for. A/B tests on subject lines, content, delays and send times come with a statistical-significance calculator and conversions in the workflow analytics, so I can see which flow earns. I found no public information on holdout groups for measuring a flow's true lift. 4 5 3
The Integrator
The visual drag-and-drop journey builder documents triggers, actions and If/Else conditions across eleven trigger types plus custom events fired via API or Zapier — event-driven entry is exactly what I need — and testing reports statistical significance rather than raw counts, with workflow split testing and send-time testing alongside it. We found no public information on holdout groups or measurement isolation for journeys, which is what separates this from the top of the range. 4 5 3
The Skeptic
The automation builder is documented as a visual drag-and-drop with triggers, actions and if/else conditions branching on clicks, opens and purchases, eleven trigger types plus custom events fired via API or Zapier, and A/B testing that reports statistical significance rather than raw counts. Send-time testing exists as an experiment you run, and we found no public information on holdout groups for measurement, so this stops short of the full lifecycle story. 4 5
Deliverability infrastructure
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented record-by-record for the sending domain with a verification recheck button, and bounce handling is genuinely operational: automatic hard-bounce suppression, soft-bounce retry with reclassification, separate hard/soft metrics for transactional mail, and bounce logs filterable by domain. I found no public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated-IP options with warm-up, inbox-placement testing, or engagement-based sunsetting, so it stays above the baseline but well short of the higher rung. 3 6 7
The Deliverability Engineer
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented down to exact record values with a verification recheck button and guidance to strengthen DMARC past p=none, and bounce discipline is genuinely good: automatic hard-bounce suppression, soft-bounce retry with suppression after persistent failures, hard and soft rates reported separately, and a domain filter to see whether bounces concentrate on one recipient domain. I ignore the advertised "up to 99% email deliverability" on principle. I found no public information on dedicated IP options, warm-up, seed or inbox-placement testing, engagement-based sunsetting, or complaint-loop handling, which keeps this short of the best-documented setups. 1 3 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented with exact records, a recheck button and a warning on free sender addresses, and hard bounces are suppressed automatically with soft-bounce retry, domain-level bounce diagnostics and screening of purchased lists at signup. We found no public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated-IP options, warm-up or engagement-based sunsetting — in particular nothing on how spam complaints are handled. 3 6 7
The Shop Owner
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented with exact record values, a single-SPF merge rule and an upgrade path from p=none to quarantine or reject, and bounce handling is genuinely worked out: hard bounces suppressed automatically, soft bounces retried and reclassified, transactional bounces tracked separately and filterable by recipient domain. I found no public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated IP options, warm-up or inbox-placement testing, and the 'Up to 99% email deliverability' figure is a marketing number I don't count as infrastructure. 6 7 3 1
The Integrator
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented down to exact record values with a verification recheck button, hard bounces are suppressed automatically, soft bounces retried with suppression after persistence, and purchased or scraped lists are screened before sending. We found no public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated IP options with warm-up, seed or inbox-placement testing, or engagement-based sunsetting — and the "up to 99% deliverability" figure is a marketing number I can't build against. 6 7 3 1
The Skeptic
SPF, DKIM and DMARC are documented record-by-record with a custom sending domain, ownership verification and a re-check button, and bounce handling is genuinely specified: automatic hard-bounce suppression, soft-bounce retry with suppression after persistent failures, and hard/soft bounces separated per domain in transactional logs. We found no public information on complaint-loop handling, dedicated IPs, warm-up or inbox-placement testing, so the 'up to 99%' figure remains a marketing number on top of a mid-weight stack. 6 7 3
Consent, proof & tracking limits
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How subscribers arrive and what the sender can prove afterwards: double opt-in, logged consent, unsubscribe handling, and whether open and click tracking can be limited or switched off.
0 — Single opt-in with no consent record; tracking is always on and cannot be disabled.
3 — Double opt-in available but not the default, and the consent record is a timestamp without the source, IP or the wording consented to.
5 — Double opt-in as the documented default with a stored consent record including source and timestamp, one-click unsubscribe, and tracking that can be turned off per campaign.
8 — Consent is reproducible as evidence: the confirmation mail and form wording versioned and retrievable per subscriber, unsubscribe honoured across lists, tracking off-by-default available, and retention rules for inactive subscribers.
10 — Built for the burden of proof: a per-subscriber consent history an authority would accept, documented handling of Art. 15 access and Art. 17 erasure requests, pixel-free and link-tracking-free sending as a supported mode, and preference-centre granularity rather than all-or-nothing.
The CRM Manager
The confirmation checkbox is never pre-ticked, the form cannot be submitted without it, the consent action is recorded alongside the subscriber record with signup source in one view, and double opt-in carries a timestamped confirmation — but the double opt-in is documented as an automation you build yourself rather than a default. I found no public information on turning off or limiting open and click tracking, no evidence of versioned consent wording retrievable per subscriber, and nothing on retention rules for inactive subscribers. 2 3 8 9
The Deliverability Engineer
Double opt-in is available with a timestamped confirmation and Confirmed/Not-confirmed groups, granular never-pre-ticked consent checkboxes with customizable wording, and a consent action recorded alongside the subscriber record with signup source and audit logging of every submission. But the confirmation flow is something the marketer assembles as an automation rather than a documented default, and I found no public information on versioned form wording retrievable per subscriber, on Art. 15 access or Art. 17 erasure handling, or on any way to switch off open and click tracking — the privacy policy logs click data with no opt-out documented. 2 3 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Double opt-in exists but as a recipe the operator assembles from a group trigger and a link-click condition rather than a documented default, though the consent action, timestamp and signup source are stored on the profile with every form submission logged. I found no public information on switching open and click tracking off or on pixel-free sending, no evidence of versioned consent wording retrievable per subscriber, and nothing on retention rules for inactive subscribers — the proof that survives a complaint is only half built. 2 3 8 9
The Shop Owner
Double opt-in exists but you assemble it yourself as an automation with a confirmation mail and a link-clicked condition rather than a documented default, though the consent record is better than a bare timestamp: the action is logged against the subscriber with source and the wording I chose, and the footer unsubscribe removes people automatically. I found no public information on turning open and click tracking off per campaign, on versioned retrievable consent wording, or on retention rules for inactive subscribers — gaps that matter when mailing paying customers. 8 9 3 2
The Integrator
Consent capture is well-tooled — a confirmation checkbox that blocks submission, customizable wording, the consent action recorded against the subscriber record with timestamped confirmation and signup source, granular never-pre-ticked checkboxes — but double opt-in is something you assemble as an automation rather than a documented default. We found no public information on open or click tracking being limited or switched off per campaign, and no versioned consent wording retrievable per subscriber. 8 9 3 2
The Skeptic
The consent checkbox blocks form submission until checked, its wording is editable, the consent action is stored alongside the subscriber with source and timestamp in one profile view, and double opt-in exists — though the help article documents it as an automation you assemble from a trigger and a link-click condition rather than a default. We found no public information on switching open and click tracking off, on preference-centre granularity, or on versioned consent wording; per-subscriber export and deletion with an audit record are the closest things shown. 8 9 3
List ownership, import & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
Import takes CSV, Excel and text files with custom fields intact, and export covers contact details, custom fields, email and SMS subscription status including unsubscribe state, group assignments and activity dates, filterable by segment, in open formats — with a single-subscriber export and profile deletion that leaves an audit record of when and why. Campaign content, templates and full per-campaign engagement history export are not evidenced, and the migration service is documented for arriving, not for leaving. 3 5 10 11
The Deliverability Engineer
Import handles CSV, Excel and text with custom fields and downloadable templates; export covers contact details, email and SMS subscription status, group assignments, custom fields and registration and activity dates in CSV or Excel, with per-profile export and profile deletion that leaves a clean audit record of when and why. A documented bearer-token API makes syncing elsewhere plausible. I found no public information on exporting engagement history, campaigns or templates, or on export throttling, and the free migration service is evidenced for coming in, not for leaving. 3 10 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Import takes CSV, Excel and text files with custom fields intact, and export covers contact fields, email and SMS subscription status, group assignments, custom fields and activity dates, filterable by segment, with per-subscriber export and profile deletion that leaves an audit record. Engagement history beyond registration and activity dates, campaign and template export, and any documented whole-account exit path are not in evidence; we found no public information on those. 3 10 11
The Shop Owner
Export covers email, name, phone, email and SMS subscription status, group assignments, custom fields and registration and activity dates in CSV or Excel, filterable down to bounced or unsubscribed subscribers — that is my list leaving intact — and import takes CSV, Excel and text files up to 64MB with custom fields, backed by a free migration service and profile deletion that leaves an audit record of when and why. I found no public information on exporting full engagement history, past campaigns or templates, or on export throttling. 10 11 3
The Integrator
Import takes CSV, Excel and TXT with custom fields and templates, and export covers contact data, email and SMS subscription status, group assignments, custom fields and registration and activity dates in CSV or xlsx, filterable by status, group and segment; profile deletion carries a clean audit record. We found no public information on exporting per-campaign engagement history, campaigns or templates, and no statement either way on export throttling. 10 11 3
The Skeptic
Export covers contact fields, custom fields, email and SMS subscription status, group assignments and registration and activity dates, in CSV or Excel and filterable by segment and unsubscribe state, with the help page naming migration to other platforms as a purpose; import accepts custom fields in files up to 64MB, and inbound migration assistance is advertised. Engagement history beyond activity dates, and export of campaigns and templates, are absent from what is shown, and deletion is a one-line claim rather than a documented cross-record process. 10 11 3
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
Named integrations include Shopify and WooCommerce, the API lives at its own documented domain with bearer tokens, requires-auth badges and code examples, and webhooks are properly engineered: eight topics including bounces, HMAC signature verification with a rotatable secret, retries on timeout, pause, and failure and response-time monitoring. I found no public information on documented rate limits or a sandbox environment, which is what holds this below the top band. 4 5 12 13
The Deliverability Engineer
Named shop and CMS integrations include Shopify, WooCommerce, PrestaShop and WordPress plus Zapier and an MCP server, the API is documented at its own domain with bearer-token auth and code examples, and the webhooks are engineered properly: eight topics including bounces, HMAC signing with a rotatable secret, retries on timeout, pause, and failure and response-time monitoring. I found no public information on documented rate limits, a sandbox, or a versioning and deprecation policy — that is what keeps this from the top of the scale. 4 5 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
A documented REST API with bearer tokens and code examples, webhooks across eight topics with HMAC signature verification, retries on timeout, pause and failure monitoring, plus named connectors including Shopify and WooCommerce, give real event flow in both directions. We found no public information on documented rate limits or a sandbox environment. 4 12 13
The Shop Owner
WooCommerce, Shopify, PrestaShop and Jumpseller are named natively, and my shop's events can drive the automations through triggers and custom events via API or Zapier, with behavioural data flowing in for segmentation. The webhooks are the strongest part — eight topics, HMAC signatures with a rotatable secret, retries on timeout, pause and failure monitoring — over a documented bearer-token API with code examples. I found no public information on documented rate limits, a sandbox, or an API versioning and deprecation policy. 4 5 12 13
The Integrator
The webhook layer is genuinely buildable — eight topics including bounces, HMAC signing with rotatable secrets, pause, failure counters and response-time monitoring — beside a bearer-authenticated API with code examples, custom events feeding automation triggers, and named shop integrations including WooCommerce, Shopify and PrestaShop. But retries are described only as "may retry" on timeout rather than a delivery policy with a schedule, and we found no public information on documented rate limits, a sandbox, or an API deprecation policy — the difference between a stack component and a connector list. 13 12 4 5
The Skeptic
Named shop integrations include WooCommerce, Shopify and PrestaShop, the API is documented with bearer tokens and code examples, and the webhooks are unusually well specified: eight topics including bounces, HMAC signing with rotatable secrets, retry on timeout, pause, failure counters and per-endpoint response times. We found no public information on documented rate limits or a sandbox, which is what holds this below the top band. 12 13 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
The contracting entity is UAB Sender.lt and every plan, including the free tier, is claimed EU-hosted by default with no transfer mechanism to evaluate — but the hosting statement appears only in compliance-page marketing copy, while the privacy policy names no server location or hosting provider. No subprocessor list is published; the only named third parties are website widgets, one of them Google reCAPTCHA, and I found no public information on the legal jurisdiction or ownership of the vendor. As a buyer who weighs this heavily, an uncorroborated residency claim is not evidence enough to go higher. 2 3
The Deliverability Engineer
The EU-hosting claim lives in marketing copy on the compliance page — subscribers' data "hosted in the European Union by default, no transfer mechanism to evaluate" — while the privacy policy says only that servers sit in "a highly secure server environment," naming no location, provider or region, and no hosting confirmation appears in a DPA or subprocessor list. The operator is UAB Sender.lt with a designated DPO and an Article 28 DPA, but the subprocessor picture is two US companies for website functions, an unnamed credit-card processor, and a third-party web analytics partner the privacy policy explicitly does not cover. For a buyer who weighs this heavily, the hosting assertion is unverified exactly where it would need to be. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
EU hosting by default on every plan is asserted with a designated DPO and a Lithuanian operator name, but the privacy policy names no server location and no hosting provider, and we found no published subprocessor list for the service chain, so the no-transfer claim rests on copy I cannot check against a DPA. Google reCAPTCHA and Cloudflare Turnstile are named only for the vendor's own website forms — which is precisely where consent is collected. Until hosting provider and subprocessors are named, the subscriber journey needs the Schrems II argument the marketing page promises I would not have to make. 2 3
The Shop Owner
The EU-hosting claim — data hosted in the European Union by default on every plan including the free tier, with an Article 28 DPA and a designated DPO — sits in marketing copy, while the privacy policy says only that servers sit in 'a highly secure server environment'. The operator is named as UAB Sender.lt, but I found no public information on a confirmed jurisdiction, ownership, a named data-centre provider, a complete subprocessor list for the sending chain, or certification — only two website widgets and a generic credit-card-processing mention. I weigh this heavily, and marketing-copy residency without a subprocessor list is not something I bank a customer list on. 2 3
The Integrator
The contracting party is named as UAB Sender.lt with a DPA under GDPR Article 28 and a designated DPO, and EU hosting is claimed as default on every plan including the free tier — but that claim appears only in marketing copy, and the privacy policy names no server location or hosting provider. The subprocessor picture is incomplete: Google reCAPTCHA and Cloudflare Turnstile are named with no legal basis, and a third-party web analytics partner is explicitly placed outside the privacy policy; we found no public information on the data-centre provider or the jurisdiction of the contracting entity. 2 3
The Skeptic
The EU-hosting claim — hosted in the European Union by default, 'no transfer mechanism to evaluate' — appears only in marketing copy on the compliance page, while the privacy policy places servers in 'a highly secure server environment' with no location, hosting provider or region named, and we found no published subprocessor list beyond Cloudflare Turnstile and Google reCAPTCHA on the website forms. The contracting entity UAB Sender.lt and a designated DPO point EU-ward, but nothing captured shows where the sending infrastructure or the unnamed third-party web-analytics partner sits. 2 3
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
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.
The CRM Manager
Only the free tier carries concrete numbers — 15,000 emails a month, no credit card required — alongside a claim of premium features included with no hidden costs or usage limits. I found no public information on paid-tier prices, contact limits, send limits, overage rates, or where automation capabilities begin on the ladder, so a buyer cannot compute a real invoice from the captured pages. 1 3 4
The Deliverability Engineer
The only concrete price figure in the captured pages is the Free Forever plan's 15,000 emails per month; the marketing promises "no hidden costs or usage limits" alongside it. I found no public information on any paid tier price, contact tiers, send limits beyond the free plan, overage rates, VAT treatment, or where automation and other paid features begin. A buyer cannot compute an invoice for their list size from these pages. 1 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The only public number we found is the free plan's 15,000 emails per month with no credit card required; there is no public information on paid tier prices, contact tiers, overage rates, feature boundaries or VAT treatment. "No hidden costs or usage limits" is an assurance, not a computable invoice. 1 3 4
The Shop Owner
The one figure I can rely on is the free tier — 'automate up to 15,000 emails/month', no credit card, cancel anytime. Beyond that I found no public prices for paid tiers at all: no contact-tier prices, no send limits, no overage rates, no VAT treatment, so I cannot compute the invoice for the list size my shop actually mails. 'Premium features included No hidden costs or usage limits' is positioning, not a figure I can plan an invoice around. 4 1 3
The Integrator
The only public numbers are the free plan — no credit card required, cancel anytime, automate up to 15,000 emails/month — plus a "no hidden costs or usage limits" claim that is positioning, not a price. We found no public information on paid tier prices, contact tiers, billing periods, overage rates or VAT treatment, so a real invoice for a given list size cannot be computed from public pages. 4 1 3
The Skeptic
The only figures a buyer can work from are the free plan's 15,000 emails per month and its no-credit-card signup; the captured pages show no paid-tier price, billing period, overage rate, additional-domain cost or VAT treatment, and 'no hidden costs or usage limits' is a slogan rather than an invoice a list owner can compute. Where the sending automation capability begins on the paid ladder is likewise not stated. 1 3 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The statement appears only in marketing copy on the GDPR compliance page; the privacy policy (S1) names no server location ('Sender stores its servers in a highly secure server environment') and no hosting provider or region is confirmed in a DPA or subprocessor list.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
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.
- 11 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.sender.net Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Campaigns & automation — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Campaigns & automation — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Deliverability infrastructure — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Deliverability infrastructure — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Consent, proof & tracking limits — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 9 Consent, proof & tracking limits — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 10 List ownership, import & exit — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 11 List ownership, import & exit — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.sender.net Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →