Marketing Automation
Mautic
Rest of world 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 Acquia, Inc. / Mautic Community · www.mautic.org
Compare with Evalanche → 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
Mautic is an open-source marketing automation platform stewarded by Acquia, Inc. of Boston, and the bench's scoring favours its delivery core: lead management and channel coverage both sit at 4, resting on customizable lead scoring, email marketing with personalization and A/B testing for marketing and transactional sends, landing pages, embeddable forms and web tracking. Journey orchestration scores 3 to 4 on a drag-and-drop Campaign Builder with nurturing from capture to conversion, though the judges note the pages stop at the label — no public information on branching, waits, per-contact journey state or what happens when journeys collide. Weakest is sovereignty at 1 to 2: data residency, ownership and subprocessors are unknown, disputes run under North Carolina, USA law, and self-hosting on your own infrastructure is the one evidenced route to keeping profiles on EU soil. Consent and profiling scores 2 to 3 because the captured privacy policy documents the project's own website rather than a customer's profiling operation. The pages show no prices beyond a 14-day free trial with no credit card required; pricing transparency scores 1, not counted here.
Speaks for it
- Channel coverage scores 4, evidenced by email marketing with personalization and A/B testing for marketing and transactional emails
- Lead management scores 4, with customizable lead scoring and lead nurturing described from capture to conversion
- Journey orchestration scores 3 to 4 on a drag-and-drop Campaign Builder for automation at every touch point
- Self-hosting on your own company infrastructure is offered and framed as "true data sovereignty"
- Developer-facing raw material exists: a REST API, a plugin ecosystem, a Drupal integration and a partners directory for installation and configuration
Held against it
- CRM and data scores 2 to 3, with no public information on sync with any named CRM, field mapping, deduplication or conflict handling
- Consent and profiling scores 2 to 3, as the captured privacy policy documents the project's own website — where removed profile information may remain in backups for a period — rather than a customer's profiling operation
- Sovereignty scores 1 to 2, with data residency, ownership and subprocessors unknown
- Stewardship sits with Acquia in Boston, the trademark with the US-based Open Source Collective, and disputes under North Carolina, USA law
- The journey pages stop at the label: no public information on branching, waits, per-contact journey state or collision handling between journeys
Best for
- You want open-source marketing automation you can self-host on your own infrastructure to keep behavioural profiles on EU soil
- Your team has developers and prefers building the integration layer over a REST API and plugin ecosystem
- Your programme is email-first: campaign building, forms, landing pages, web tracking and customizable lead scoring from capture to conversion
- You work with Drupal and want the evidenced Drupal integration for personalized automated emails
Avoid if
- You need out-of-the-box CRM sync with field mapping, deduplication and conflict resolution — the captured pages evidence developer tooling, not a CRM data model
- Your data protection officer must review consent mechanics — stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switches — before sign-off
- Your compliance position depends on a vendor-side chain in the EU rather than on self-hosting
- Your live programme depends on collision handling — frequency capping, suppression and priority across journeys — that cannot be documented from these pages
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
A drag-and-drop campaign builder is confirmed, but the captured pages stop at the label: we found no public information on branching on behaviour, waits, entry and exit conditions, per-contact journey state, or what happens when a contact qualifies for several journeys. That last part is what decides whether automation survives a real quarter, and nothing shown answers it. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The drag-and-drop Campaign Builder and lead-nurturing automation from capture to conversion are evidenced, so a visual builder is on the table, but we found no public information on branching on attributes and behaviour, waits, entry and exit conditions, or where a contact currently sits in a campaign. We also found no public information on what happens when journeys collide — frequency capping, suppression across journeys, or priority when a contact qualifies for several — which is the part that decides whether automation survives contact with reality. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A drag-and-drop campaign builder described as "automation at every touch point" and lead nurturing from capture to conversion are evidenced, which puts this above single-trigger autoresponders. We found no public information on branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, per-contact journey state, or what happens when a contact qualifies for several journeys at once — the collision handling is exactly what I need documented. 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
A drag-and-drop campaign builder with nurturing from capture to conversion and email A/B testing is evidenced, which clears a single-trigger autoresponder. But we found no public information on branching and waits, per-contact journey state, or the collision handling that decides whether a programme survives — frequency capping and suppression across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, versioning, and holdout groups for measurement. 2
The Solution Architect
The captured pages show a drag-and-drop Campaign Builder for automation at every touch point and lead nurturing from capture to conversion, which is a genuine visual builder, but I found no public information on branching conditions, waits, entry and exit rules, or where a contact currently sits in a journey. The collision questions that decide whether this survives a real programme — frequency capping, suppression across journeys, versioning of a live journey — go entirely unaddressed in what was captured. 2
The Skeptic
A drag-and-drop campaign builder for automation at every touch point, plus nurturing from capture to conversion, gets this past autoresponders on a single trigger. We found no public information on branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, where a contact currently sits in a journey, or what happens when several journeys want the same person — so a buyer cannot tell whether it survives contact with a real programme. 2
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
Customisable lead scoring is stated, which puts it above a fixed single score, but we found no public information on score decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners, or per-contact score history. When sales asks why a lead scored what it did, nothing captured will answer them. 2
The Sales Ops Manager
Customizable lead scoring is evidenced, which clears the fixed-rules floor, but we found no public information on decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners or teams with notification, or score history per contact. I inherit the handover, and nothing here would let my team explain to a lead why the system decided what it decided; we found no public information on negative scoring, account-level scoring or multiple scoring models either. I place it midway between a simple additive score and a fully configurable model. 2
The Data Protection Officer
Customizable lead scoring is the one evidenced element, which already says the rules are configurable rather than fixed. We found no public information on decay, lifecycle stages, routing with notification, score history per contact, or how each signal contributes to a score — so I cannot begin an assessment of the scoring as automated decision-making from these pages. 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
Customizable lead scoring is the one evidenced capability, a step above a fixed additive score, with nurturing described from capture to conversion. We found no public information on score decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners or teams, negative or account-level scoring, or score history per contact — and nothing that would let anyone explain to a lead why the score is what it is. 2
The Solution Architect
Customizable lead scoring is stated outright, which is more than a fixed additive score, and lead nurturing is described from capture to conversion, but I found no public information on score decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners or teams, or score history per contact. Nothing captured would let a customer explain to a lead why the system scored it as it did. 2
The Skeptic
Customizable lead scoring is documented in a single sentence, which reads as configurable rules rather than one fixed score. We found no public information on score decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners or teams with notification, negative or account-level scoring, or per-contact score history — so the handover to sales is unevidenced end to end. 2
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
Email is deep — drag-and-drop builder, personalisation, A/B testing — alongside landing pages, embedded forms and web tracking, but we found no public information on SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync, and no stated shared suppression across what exists. This reads as an email platform with strong lead capture rather than a cross-channel one. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Email marketing and transactional email with personalisation and A/B testing, plus web forms, landing pages and web tracking, are all evidenced from one platform. We found no public information on SMS or push, ad-audience sync, cross-channel frequency capping, or shared unsubscribe handling across channels. The contact profile appears shared across what exists, but no second delivery channel is evidenced to join it. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Email with personalisation and A/B testing, landing pages, and forms embeddable on websites and popup modals are evidenced, alongside a Drupal integration for personalised emails. We found no public information on SMS or push channels, ad-audience sync, cross-channel frequency capping, or a shared suppression list, so coverage beyond the email-and-web pair is an assumption. 1 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
Email with personalisation and A/B testing, web forms, landing pages and web tracking are evidenced, plus Drupal-driven personalised emails. We found no public information on SMS, push, on-site personalisation or ad-audience sync, nor on cross-channel frequency capping or a shared suppression list — so the behavioural record feeding personalisation across channels is unevidenced. 1 2
The Solution Architect
Email with personalisation and A/B testing, landing pages, embeddable forms including popup modals, and web tracking are all evidenced on the features pages. I found no public information on SMS or push, ad-audience sync, dynamic content blocks, or shared unsubscribe handling across channels, so the one-profile-one-suppression-list question stays open. 2
The Skeptic
Email is richly documented — drag-and-drop builder, personalisation, A/B testing for marketing and transactional sends — alongside forms, landing pages, web tracking and a Drupal integration for hyper-personalised emails. We found no public information on SMS, push, on-site content personalisation, ad-audience sync, or one shared suppression list across channels, which reads as an email-first platform with capture tools rather than cross-channel delivery. 1 2
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
The privacy policy mostly governs the project's own website — a third-party cookie banner, consent-by-use to international transfer, backups holding removed profile data — while the product-side claims are generic privacy-compliance language; we found no public information on stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switches, or retention rules for marketing profiles. For software whose whole job is profiling named people, the accountability detail isn't there. 3 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Privacy positioning is loud — "privacy-focused by default", compliance claims for GDPR and CCPA, web tracking with a compliance focus, and a consent banner on the vendor's own site — but we found no public information on double opt-in defaults, stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, tracking suppressed per contact, or retention rules for inactive records. The deletion facts that do exist concern website accounts, and removed profile information is stated to sit in backups for a period before complete removal. For a platform building behavioural profiles of named people, the captured pages evidence the promise and not the mechanism. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The product is positioned as "privacy-focused by default", but the captured privacy policy documents the project's own website — its cookie banner, its legal bases, its backups — not the customer's profiling operation. We found no public information on consent records with source and wording versioning, per-contact tracking suppression, retention executed per data category, or erasure that removes derived scores; the policy itself says removed profile information may stay in backups for a period, which is the opposite of reproducible deletion. 1 2 3
The Lifecycle Marketer
The captured pages claim privacy-focused-by-default operation, GDPR and CCPA compliance, and web tracking with a compliance focus, and the project's own site runs a cookie consent banner. For the product's handling of other people's contacts we found no public information on stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switches, retention for inactive records, or suppression of a person from profiling; retention appears only as a note that removed profile information may linger in backups. 1 2 3
The Solution Architect
What is captured is posture rather than mechanics: privacy-focused by default, compliance with GDPR and CCPA, web tracking and analytics described with a data privacy focus, and a named consent tool that governs cookies on the project's own site rather than a product capability for marketing contacts. I found no public information on double opt-in defaults, stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switches, or retention rules for contact data; the captured privacy policy concerns the project's community website, its accounts and its backups, not how a customer's leads are profiled. 1 2 3 1
The Skeptic
The product is pitched as privacy-focused with GDPR and CCPA compliance, and the privacy policy documents the project website's own consent tool and legal bases; deletion is stated to be permanent while removed profile information may remain in backups for a period. We found no public information on double opt-in defaults, stored consent records with source, per-channel consent states, a per-contact tracking switch, retention for inactive records, or suppression of profiling — the pages give posture, not mechanism. 1 2 3
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
A REST API and a plugin ecosystem are the documented integration path, plus one Drupal case study, but we found no public information on bidirectional sync with a major CRM, field mapping, conflict rules or a sync error log. The only CRM named in the captures is the project's own contributor tool, which tells a buyer nothing about their pipeline join. 2 1 1
The Sales Ops Manager
A documented REST API, a plugin ecosystem and a partners directory for installation and configuration are evidenced — build-it-yourself territory — and we found no public information on connectors to any named CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, configurable conflict resolution per field, or a sync error log I could act on before the pipeline report is wrong. The join that decides who a person is in two systems, and what happens when the systems disagree, is exactly where duplicates get born, and the captured pages are silent on both. The Drupal integration is content, not CRM. 1 2 1
The Data Protection Officer
A REST API for bespoke integrations, a plugin ecosystem, and a partners directory for installation and SaaS providers are the evidenced integration routes. We found no public information on bidirectional sync with any named CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, or conflict resolution — the join that keeps two systems agreeing about who a person is is left to the customer's own build. 1 2 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The evidenced integration story is a REST API for bespoke integrations, a plugin ecosystem and a partners directory — developer tooling, not a CRM data model. We found no public information on bidirectional sync with a named CRM, field mapping, deduplication or conflict rules, account-level objects, or identity resolution across anonymous and known states; every join would be bespoke build work. 1 2
The Solution Architect
A REST API for bespoke integrations, an extendable plugin ecosystem, a Drupal integration, a certified developer path covering plugin development, and a partners directory for configuration help are evidenced — for a self-hostable open-source product that is the raw material for a custom join. But I found no public information on sync with a named CRM, field mapping, deduplication rules, configurable conflict resolution, rate limits for the API, or identity resolution between anonymous visitors and known contacts, which is the part that decides every implementation I have run. 1 2 1
The Skeptic
A REST API for bespoke integrations, a plugin ecosystem and a Drupal integration are documented, and the only CRM actually named on the captured pages is one the project uses internally to collate contributor activity. We found no public information on sync with any major CRM in either direction, field mapping, deduplication rules, conflict handling, or a documented API with rate limits a customer can plan against. 1 2 3 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
The steward is a US company, disputes run under North Carolina law, the trademark sits with a US-based collective, and the lone EU signal is a postal privacy-contact address; hosting, subprocessors and the contracting entity are unstated. Documented self-hosting is the one real mitigation — a European deployment can keep profiles on its own infrastructure — which is why this isn't lower. 3 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The steward is Acquia, Inc. in Boston, the trademark sits with a US-based Open Source Collective, disputes run under North Carolina law, and website use is stated as consent to international transfer of information, while data residency and subprocessors show as unknown. The only GB presence is a postal contact address for privacy inquiries, not a statement of incorporation. Self-hosting is genuinely offered as "true data sovereignty" — a customer-managed escape hatch — but on the vendor's own side the captured pages support only the lowest level of this scale. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The project is stewarded by Acquia of Boston, the trademark sits with the US-based Open Source Collective, disputes are governed by North Carolina law, and the only European footprint in the captures is a UK postal address for privacy inquiries; data residency, ownership and subprocessors are all unstated. Self-hosting on the customer's own infrastructure is documented as the sovereignty route and can keep behavioural profiles on EU soil, but nothing about the vendor chain itself is evidenced, and given the profiling I weigh that heavily. 1 3 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
Self-hosting on the company's own infrastructure is offered as true data sovereignty, and for a European deployment that is a real path — but it is the only one evidenced and it puts the whole chain on the customer. The contracting picture is unclear from the captured pages: a UK postal address for privacy inquiries, the trademark held by the US-based Open Source Collective, disputes governed by North Carolina law, and we found no public information on data residency or subprocessors for hosted use. 1 3
The Solution Architect
Self-hosting on your own company infrastructure is the one evidenced route to keeping profiles in the EU, and the project markets itself on exactly that. Around the vendor side the evidence runs the other way — stewardship under Acquia in the United States, the trademark held by the US-based Open Source Collective, a privacy policy governed by North Carolina law that asks website users to consent to international transfer, a UK postal address that serves privacy inquiries only — and I found no public information on data residency for the hosted offering, ownership, or any subprocessor list. 1 2 3 1
The Skeptic
The privacy policy gives a UK postal address for privacy inquiries but applies North Carolina, USA law to disputes, the trademark sits with a US-based fiscal sponsor, and the project is stewarded by a US company; we found no public information on data residency for the vendor's own offering or any subprocessor list. Self-hosting on your own infrastructure is offered as the sovereignty answer, which for behavioural profiles of named EU residents moves the whole compliance burden onto the customer's own operations. 1 3 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
Beyond a fourteen-day free trial with no credit card required, we found no public prices at all — no tiers, contact or send limits, onboarding fees, minimum term or VAT treatment; the open-source licence implies a zero-fee self-hosted path, but nothing states what the hosted trial converts to. A buyer cannot assemble even a rough annual number from these pages. 2 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The only pricing-related fact on the captured pages is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required; we found no public information on contact-tier prices, billing periods, send limits, overage rates, or mandatory onboarding fees. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only pricing fact captured is a 14-day free trial described as "completely free of charge - no credit card required". We found no public information on tier prices, contact or send limits, overage rates, or onboarding and implementation costs, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from these pages. 2
The Lifecycle Marketer
The only pricing-adjacent fact is a 14-day free trial with no credit card required. We found no public prices, tiers, contact or send limits, feature boundaries or onboarding costs, so an annual invoice cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2
The Solution Architect
The only pricing-related statement captured is a 14-day free trial, "completely free of charge - no credit card required". I found no public information on tier prices, contact or send limits, overage rates, or implementation and onboarding costs, so no annual invoice can be computed for any contact base from the public pages. 2
The Skeptic
The only priced item we could find is a 14-day free trial described as completely free of charge with no credit card required; beyond that we found no public prices, contact tiers, send limits, feature boundaries, overage rates, minimum terms or any mention of an implementation fee. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages — whatever the paid picture is, it is a conversation. 2
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 | Incorporated in GB ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 2 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 — Legal entity. This is a postal contact address for privacy inquiries, not a registry or imprint statement of incorporation, and the page separately notes "MAUTIC is a trademark of the Mautic project of the Open Source Collective", a US-based fiscal sponsor.
- 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.
- 16 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
- 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
- 4 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
- 3 integrations 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
- 3 support 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 hosting 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 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 (4)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Project homepage www.mautic.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 +3 earlier captures: 28 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026, 2 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Features www.mautic.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.mautic.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page mautic.org Checked 5 Oct 2026 Details →