Marketing Automation

Mautic

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

by Acquia, Inc. / Mautic Community · www.mautic.org

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Demand Gen Lead v1.0 · The Sales Ops Manager v1.0 · The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Lifecycle Marketer v1.0 · The Solution Architect v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 28 Sep 2026

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 Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

Sees a profiling system, not a mailing tool. Wants consent reproducible per person, tracking that can be switched off for someone who never agreed to it, deletion that removes derived scores as well as raw events, and scoring documented well enough to assess under Art. 22.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Journeys & orchestration

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Lead scoring, routing & lifecycle

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Channels & personalisation

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Consent, tracking & profiling

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

CRM integration & data model

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 4 dimensions proven

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

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

Do you know more about Mautic? Tell us Report an error on this page

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 →