Marketing Automation
CleverReach (Automation)
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by CleverReach GmbH & Co. KG · www.cleverreach.com
Compare with Emarsys → 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
CleverReach (Automation) from CleverReach GmbH & Co. KG, Rastede, Germany, scores on this bench as an email-first tool in a Marketing Automation slot. Its strongest criterion is pricing transparency, which holds the table's highest score: tier feature boundaries are public, automation demonstrably begins in Pro, and add-ons are priced outright — onboarding €29 per 45-minute appointment, premium support €22.95/month. Weakest are lead scoring, routing & lifecycle and CRM integration & data model (0 each): no scoring, lifecycle stages or routing, and no CRM sync, field mapping, documented API or even evidenced CSV import. Journeys & orchestration is fixed at 2 on 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' plus timed sending alone. Spreads stay below the threshold for flagging a split but are visible: channels & personalisation runs 0-2 on whether unlimited forms and a click heatmap count past email-only, and consent, tracking & profiling runs 2-3 on whether the policy's retention facts — 3-month newsletter data, 7-day logs, 10-day deletion on revocation — offset unevidenced product consent tooling. Sovereignty sits at 3: German legal form, residency unknown, third-country subprocessor transfers conceded on Art. 49 consent.
Speaks for it
- Tier feature boundaries are public, with automation, A/B testing and timed sending unambiguously gated to Pro.
- Add-ons are priced outright — onboarding €29 per 45-minute appointment, premium support €22.95/month, design/spam tests €5 and accessibility tests €3 each.
- Retention is stated per data category — newsletter data deleted within 3 months, log files anonymised after 7 days, account deletion within 10 days of revocation.
- A free month is available to Pro new customers up to 5,000 recipients (not combinable, not for agency customers, not in the USA).
- The controller is a named German legal form (CleverReach GmbH & Co. KG, Rastede) and TLS encryption is stated in the policy.
Held against it
- Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle and CRM integration & data model score 0 — no scoring, lifecycle stages or routing, and no CRM sync, field mapping, documented API or even evidenced CSV import.
- Journeys & orchestration is capped at 2 — the only evidence is Pro's 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' plus timed sending, with no branching, waits or per-contact journey state.
- Channels & personalisation runs 0-2 — email is the only evidenced delivery channel, with no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync anywhere.
- Data residency is unknown, and the policy concedes subprocessor processing outside the EU/EWR on an Art. 49 consent basis, with authority access possible without notification or remedy.
- No contact-tier prices, send limits, billing period or overage rates are captured, so the annual invoice is not computable, and SLA and dedicated IP run 'auf Anfrage' unpriced.
Best for
- You need an email-only newsletter tool with unlimited forms, open/click statistics and scheduled sending for a German-market audience.
- You want published tier boundaries and priced add-ons (€29 onboarding, €22.95/month support) so you can budget without negotiating.
- You are a new customer weighing Pro for up to 5,000 recipients and can use the free month.
- You want a vendor whose privacy policy states concrete retention per data category.
Avoid if
- You need lead scoring, lifecycle stages or routing to sales — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your implementation depends on a CRM join, field mapping or a documented API — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need branching journeys with waits, conditions or per-contact journey state — only autoresponders and timed sending appear.
- You must pin down data residency or exclude third-country subprocessor transfers — residency is unknown and Art. 49-based transfers are conceded.
The scores
Journeys & orchestration
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Multi-step automation: triggers, branching, waits, and — the part that decides whether it survives contact with reality — what happens when journeys collide.
0 — Autoresponders on a single trigger; no branching, no waits, no conditions.
3 — Linear sequences with simple conditions, one entry trigger per journey, and no visibility into where a contact currently sits.
5 — A visual builder with branching on attributes and behaviour, waits and goals, entry and exit conditions, and per-contact journey state visible.
8 — Event-driven entry from external systems, frequency capping and suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning of a live journey, and testing against real records.
10 — Orchestration is coherent across the whole programme: one decision layer deciding what a person receives next regardless of which journey wants to send it, holdout groups for measurement, and a journey a colleague can read months later without a diagram.
The Demand Gen Lead
The whole orchestration case is one Pro feature bullet — 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' plus 'zeitgesteuerter Versand' — which is autoresponder territory with a calendar. No branching, waits, entry/exit conditions, per-contact journey state, or any answer to what happens when two journeys want the same person; absent evidence means absent capability. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Pro promises 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' plus timed sending and A/B tests, which is more than a bare autoresponder — but the evidence evidences nothing on branching, waits, entry/exit conditions or per-contact journey state. I can't credit it past linear territory on 'unlimited automations' alone. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only orchestration evidence is the Pro tier's 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' plus 'zeitgesteuerter Versand' — no branching, no waits, no conditions, and nothing showing where a contact sits in a sequence. That sits between an autoresponder and a linear sequence: 2. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The entire orchestration evidence is one tier line — 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' gated to Pro; nothing evidences branching, waits, goals, per-contact journey state, and — the part that decides whether automation survives contact with reality — no frequency capping, suppression or collision handling across journeys anywhere in the evidence. That's an autoresponder shop at best, sitting below even the linear-sequence anchor. 1
The Solution Architect
"Unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen" in the Pro tier is the entire orchestration evidence — no branching, waits, entry/exit conditions, per-contact state visibility, or collision handling anywhere in the registry. A named automation capability with no evidence of even simple conditions lands between rubric level 0 and rubric level 3; I've maintained autoresponders like this and they are not orchestration. 1
The Skeptic
The only automation evidence is 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen' in the Pro list, alongside scheduled sending and A/B testing — autoresponders and split tests, not orchestration. Nothing on branching, waits, conditions, or what happens when two automations want the same contact; per-contact journey state isn't even hinted at. 1
Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Scoring, qualification and handover to sales — including whether the customer can explain to a lead why the system decided what it decided.
0 — No scoring or lifecycle model; every contact is treated alike.
3 — A single additive score with fixed rules, no decay, no lifecycle stages and no routing.
5 — Configurable scoring on attributes and behaviour with decay, lifecycle stages, and routing to owners or teams with notification.
8 — Multiple scoring models per product or region, negative scoring, account-level scoring alongside contact-level, SLA on follow-up, and score history visible per contact.
10 — Scoring is explainable and accountable: the contribution of each signal visible per record, model changes versioned with their effect on the funnel, routing rules auditable, and predictive scoring — where offered — documented well enough for a DPO to assess it as automated decision-making.
The Demand Gen Lead
The evidence is completely silent on scoring, lifecycle stages, and routing — nothing here a rep could act on. The nearest items are open/click statistics and a click heatmap, which is reporting on sends, not qualification, so this sits at the floor. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Silence on the entire criterion: no scoring, no decay, no lifecycle stages, no routing anywhere in the feature lists or the policy. Every contact is treated alike as far as this evidence goes. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Not one fact evidences scoring, decay, lifecycle stages or routing; the feature lists cover sending, statistics and a KI-Content-Generator and nothing else. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
Neither the Basic nor the Pro feature lists mention scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, routing or handover to sales — for a product categorised as Marketing Automation, the evidence is completely silent on the criterion. Every contact is treated alike: anchor zero. 1
The Solution Architect
The tier feature lists enumerate forms, heatmaps, A/B tests, spam tests and image tools — no scoring, decay, lifecycle stage, routing or sales handover appears anywhere. The registry is silent on the entire criterion, and the anchors say silence here is a zero. 1
The Skeptic
Neither the Basic nor the Pro feature list contains a word about scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, routing or handover to sales. As far as this sheet evidences, every contact is treated alike. 1
Channels & personalisation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What the platform can actually send and personalise: email, SMS, push, on-site content, ads audiences — judged on what shares one profile and one suppression list.
0 — Email only.
3 — Email plus one further channel, managed separately with its own list and no shared suppression.
5 — Email, SMS or push and web forms driven from one contact profile, with dynamic content blocks and shared unsubscribe handling.
8 — The above plus on-site personalisation, ad-audience sync to the major networks, cross-channel frequency capping, and content personalised on behaviour rather than only on stored fields.
10 — Channel is a delivery detail: one profile and one consent state across every channel, next-best-channel selection, and personalisation that draws on the full behavioural record without the marketer assembling it by hand.
The Demand Gen Lead
Confirmed capability is email plus 'unbegrenzte Formulare' and an AI content generator; no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync appears anywhere as a product feature. Even the vendor's own remarketing runs through Facebook Pixel and Google — those are their website tools, not channels I could send a customer's contacts through, so this barely clears email-only. 1 2
The Sales Ops Manager
Email is the only delivery channel evidenced; unlimited forms is capture, not sending, and there is no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync. The Meta pixel and Google remarketing in the policy are the vendor tracking its own website, not a product capability I can buy. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Email is the only delivery channel evidenced; 'unbegrenzte Formulare' and 'Klick-Heatmap & Client-Auswertung' are capture and analytics, not a second channel. No SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync appears anywhere, so this barely clears email-only. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The only evidenced sending channel is email; 'unbegrenzte Formulare' and the Klick-Heatmap are capture and analytics, not channels, and there is no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync in evidence — let alone one shared suppression list. This is email-only with web trimmings, one point above the floor only for the form/heatmap touchpoints hanging off the same product. 1
The Solution Architect
Every send-related feature evidenced is email: newsletter, A/B testing, click heatmap, design and spam tests. "Unbegrenzte Formulare" is capture, not a delivery channel, and no SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync is evidenced — just above email-only. 1
The Skeptic
Email is the only channel the product can send; the 'unbegrenzte Formulare' are capture forms, not a delivery channel, and no SMS, push, on-site content or ad-audience sync appears anywhere. The KI content generator writes copy — it isn't evidenced as per-recipient dynamic content. 1
Consent, tracking & profiling
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The platform builds behavioural profiles of named people. Consent capture and proof, tracking that can be limited, retention, and whether automated decisions about individuals are documented and contestable.
0 — Tracking always on and undocumented, single opt-in, no consent record, no retention rule, no way to exclude a person from profiling.
3 — Double opt-in available with a timestamp, cookie tracking that cannot be disabled per contact, and retention described as the customer's problem.
5 — Double opt-in as documented default with a stored consent record including source, per-channel consent states, tracking switchable per contact, and stated retention for inactive records.
8 — Consent reproducible as evidence with the wording versioned, profiling suppressible per person, retention executed per data category, documented handling of access and erasure requests including derived scores, and a cookieless or first-party tracking mode.
10 — Built for the accountability principle: a per-contact history of what was tracked, scored and decided, automated decision-making documented well enough to support an Art. 22 assessment, profiling off by default for anyone who has not consented to it, and deletion that removes derived scores as well as raw events.
The Demand Gen Lead
Retention is stated concretely per category — newsletter data deleted within 3 months of opt-out, log files anonymised after 7 days, account deletion 10 days after revocation — which is more than most sheets admit. But double opt-in, a stored consent record with source, per-channel consent states and per-contact tracking switches for our recipients are all unevidenced, and the 6-year form retention is a blunt rule I'd have to defend. 2
The Sales Ops Manager
The policy states real retention per data category — newsletter data 3 months, form data 6 years, logs 7 days anonymised, 10-day deletion on revocation — but it governs the vendor's own site and accounts, not evidence of per-contact consent records with source, per-channel states or a per-contact tracking switch in the product. Worse, transfers outside the EU hang on Art. 49(1)(a) consent, the thinnest basis available. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy states concrete retention per data category (newsletter data 3 months, log files anonymised after 7 days, account deleted 10 days after withdrawal) — but it governs the vendor's own website and account registration, not the product: no double opt-in default, no consent record with source, no per-contact tracking switch, no profiling suppression, no erasure handling covering derived data. Six-year retention on form data is also not what I would call restraint; what I need to assess is simply not evidenced. 1 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
Retention is stated and executed per data category — log files deleted after max 7 days, newsletter data 3 months after end of receipt, account deletion within 10 days of revocation — which is more than most sheets show. But none of it covers the customer's contacts: no double opt-in, no per-channel consent states, no stored consent source, no way to suppress a person from the heatmap-driven profiling, and third-country transfers ride on Art. 49 consent with the policy itself warning that authorities may access data without notification or remedy. 2
The Solution Architect
The privacy policy states executed retention per category (3 months after newsletter opt-out, 7-day anonymised logs, 10-day deletion on revocation) — but that governs CleverReach's own website and newsletter, not the product's consent tooling. No consent record with source, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switch or profiling suppression is evidenced, which leaves it short of rubric level 3 despite the retention facts. 2
The Skeptic
The privacy policy governs cleverreach.com itself — 10-day deletion on revocation, 3-month newsletter data, 7-day logs, and the vendor's own trackers named — but says nothing about the platform's consent tooling: no double opt-in default, no per-contact consent record with source, no tracking switch, no profiling suppression. Retention for the customer's contact data is left undescribed. 2
CRM integration & data model
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The join that decides the implementation: how the platform and the CRM stay in agreement about who a person is, and what happens when they disagree.
0 — CSV import and export; no CRM integration and no identity resolution.
3 — One-way sync into a named CRM on a schedule, with duplicates resolved by hand and no conflict rules.
5 — Bidirectional sync with at least one major CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, and a sync error log somebody can act on.
8 — Configurable conflict resolution per field, account and contact objects both modelled, custom objects supported, near-real-time sync with retry, and a documented API with rate limits.
10 — One record, two systems, no ambiguity: identity resolution across anonymous and known states, field-level ownership defined per system, replay of failed syncs, and a data model the customer can extend without vendor services.
The Demand Gen Lead
No CRM is named, no API, no field mapping, no identity resolution — the entire data-model evidence is 'unbegrenzte Empfängerlisten', which is list management, not a join between two systems. The anchor floor says CSV-and-nothing scores 0, and the evidence doesn't even evidence the CSV. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The join that decides my implementation is simply absent: no CRM named, no sync direction, no field mapping, no dedup rules, no conflict resolution, no sync error log, no documented API. By this evidence I inherit every duplicate with no rules at all — CSV import/export territory or worse. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The evidence contains no word of CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication or a documented API — even CSV import is unevidenced. Absence of evidence is absence here: 0. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
No CRM integration, sync, field mapping, API or identity resolution appears anywhere in the evidence; the only data model evidenced is 'unbegrenzte Empfängerlisten' — flat lists. Anchor zero. 1
The Solution Architect
Not one fact about CRM sync, field mapping, deduplication, conflict rules, a documented API or rate limits — the registry holds only a pricing page and a privacy policy. For me the CRM join and the anonymous-to-known path decide the implementation, and this sheet cannot even evidence a CSV bridge; rubric level 0. 1 2
The Skeptic
No CRM, no sync, no field mapping, no API, not even CSV import appears anywhere in the registry. The join that decides the implementation isn't weak here — it's absent from the evidence. 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where behavioural profiles of named EU residents are processed, who the contracting entity is, and which subprocessors see them. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; scored here as this buyer weighs it — which given the profiling is heavily.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated or non-EU, subprocessors unnamed, behavioural data leaving the EU with no stated basis.
3 — EU data residency for storage while tracking, sending or support access remain non-EU, or the contracting entity sits outside the EU.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — tracking scripts, AI scoring, analytics — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, complete subprocessor list published, and any non-EU processing named with its legal basis.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: every profile, event and derived score processed in the EU by European subprocessors, certification published, and no transfer requiring a Schrems II argument to survive.
The Demand Gen Lead
A German contracting entity is likely from the GmbH & Co. KG form and the named controller, but hosting and residency are unstated, and the policy openly admits processing outside the EU/EWR by subcontractors resting on Art. 49(1)(a) consent — warning that foreign authorities may access data with no notification or recourse. With behavioural profiles of named people on the line, that is an anchor-3 chain, and I won't round it up. 2
The Sales Ops Manager
The contracting entity is a German GmbH & Co. KG, but residency and ownership are unknown, the subprocessor exposure for the service itself is unconfirmed, and the policy openly concedes subprocessor processing outside the EU/EWR with transfers based on Art. 49 consent. For behavioural profiles of named EU residents, that is a chain I cannot defend to a DPO. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A German contracting entity is named, but hosting location for the profile data is unstated, and the policy concedes third-country processing via subprocessors on the basis of Art. 49 Abs. 1 lit. a consent — a transfer basis for routine processing that will not survive scrutiny — while itself warning of authority access without notification or remedy. US services (Taboola, Zendesk) are at least named, which keeps this off the floor but nowhere near the level this profiling buyer needs. 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
A German legal form (GmbH & Co. KG, Rastede) is the one solid fact; hosting location, ownership and the service's own subprocessor list are all unknown, and the policy concedes processing outside the EU/EWR by subprocessors on the basis of Art. 49(1)(a) consent — a basis that barely survives a Schrems II argument — while the vendor's own pages run Facebook Pixel, Taboola and Zendesk out of the USA. For behavioural profiles of named EU residents I weigh that heavily, and I can't go above the anchor that treats unexplained non-EU chain links as the ceiling. 2
The Solution Architect
The controller is a German GmbH & Co. KG, but data residency and ownership are unknown, and the vendor itself warns that subcontractors may process outside the EU on an Art. 49 consent basis, with authorities able to access data without notification or redress. Named US subprocessors (Zendesk, Taboola, Google retargeting) plus an unexplained transfer mechanism means an EU letterhead over an unargued Schrems II exposure. 2
The Skeptic
GmbH & Co. KG is a German legal form, so the contracting entity is almost certainly EU — but hosting and the product's own subprocessors are unstated, and the policy concedes data may be processed outside the EU/EWR by subcontractors on an Art. 49(1)(a) consent basis, a derogation meant for occasional transfers, while itself warning that foreign authorities may access data without notice or remedy. For a platform profiling named EU residents, that's a Schrems II problem papered over with consent. 2
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual invoice for their contact base and send volume — including the tier where automation actually begins, overage, and mandatory onboarding — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation, and onboarding fees are never mentioned.
3 — A contact-tier headline exists, but the tier where journeys, scoring or CRM sync begin is unstated, as is any mandatory implementation fee.
5 — Contact-tier prices public with billing period and send limits stated, but at least one commonly needed capability sits in an unpriced enterprise tier.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with contact and volume limits, feature boundaries, overage rates, onboarding costs, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given contact count, send volume and feature set, including overage, additional users and any implementation fee stated outright.
The Demand Gen Lead
Feature boundaries per tier are public and unusually clear — automation demonstrably begins in Pro — and onboarding (29 €/appointment), premium support (22.95 €/month) and per-test fees are priced with VAT and B2B scope stated. But the actual tier price levels, billing period and send limits aren't in the evidence, and Enterprise staples like SLA and dedicated IP are 'auf Anfrage', so I cannot compute a real annual invoice from this. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Good bones: feature boundaries are public (automation and A/B tests live in Pro), VAT treatment is stated, onboarding is €29 per appointment and premium support €22.95/month, and a setup-fee FAQ exists. But no per-tier contact prices, send limits, billing period or overage are captured, so I still cannot compute the annual invoice from public pages. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The tier where automation begins is public (Pro: 'unbegrenzte E-Mail-Automationen') and add-ons are priced outright — onboarding 29 €/Termin, premium support 22,95 €/month, VAT treatment and free-month conditions stated. But no contact-tier amounts, billing period or send limits appear in the evidence, and SLA and dedicated IP run 'auf Anfrage' unpriced, so the annual invoice is not computable from this sheet. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The tier where automation begins is actually visible — unlimited email automations only from Pro — onboarding is priced openly (€29 per 45-minute appointment), VAT treatment and B2B-only terms are stated, and add-ons like design tests (€5) and premium support (€22.95/month) are public. But no contact-tier price figures, send limits, billing period or overage rates are captured, and the Enterprise tier's price is absent, so a buyer still cannot compute the annual invoice for their contact base. 1
The Solution Architect
The pricing page gives clear feature boundaries per tier — automation unambiguously starts at Pro — plus priced onboarding (€29 per 45-minute appointment), VAT treatment stated, and per-unit test prices, which clears rubric level 3's gaps. But the registry never captures the actual tier prices, send limits, overage rates or minimum term, so the annual invoice for a given contact base is not computable from the evidence — short of rubric level 5. 1
The Skeptic
A public pricing page exists with tier feature lists, add-on prices (€22.95/month premium support, €29 per 45-minute onboarding appointment, €3–5 per test), a VAT note and a free month tied to Pro 'bis 5.000 Empfänger' — but not one contact-tier price, send limit, overage rate or minimum term is captured, so no annual invoice is computable. And the FAQ asks 'Gibt es eine Einrichtungsgebühr?' with the answer nowhere in the evidence — the fee that lives off the pricing page. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 | Incorporated in DE | 3/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 7 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 16 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. EU hosting is promised in marketing copy on a product-benefits page, and the privacy policy itself concedes that processing outside the EU/EWR can occur through subcontractors.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 7 subprocessors 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
- 6 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
- 6 pricing 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 compliance 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
- 1 support 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Pricing www.cleverreach.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.cleverreach.com Checked 16 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.cleverreach.com Checked 21 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Journeys & orchestration — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap www.cleverreach.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →