Marketing Automation
SALESmanago
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SALESmanago Marketing Cloud Sp. z o.o. · www.salesmanago.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SALESmanago — rebranded Manago AI, from SALESmanago Marketing Cloud Sp. z o.o. — earns its best marks on channel coverage, where scores run 4-6: email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web are offered as one connected journey, with a built-in two-way SMS gateway and personalisation built on views, carts, wishlists and purchase history. The weaknesses are broad: lead management scores 0-1, consent and profiling 0-1, and pricing transparency 0-1, with a demo and free trial the only commercial signals. Judges credit the commerce intent capture — back-in-stock requests, price-drop alerts, purchase history — but found no public information on scoring, routing to sales, consent capture, retention or CRM integration; every connector named is an e-commerce platform or the Thulium contact center. Journey orchestration scores 2-3 on the connected-journey claim without documented branching or entry conditions. Sovereignty and CRM and data sit flat at 2: the contracting entity carries a Polish legal form and 2,000+ European brands are cited, yet no sovereignty attributes are on record. Divergence is modest: channel coverage's 4-6 is the widest range, others span a point at most.
Speaks for it
- Five channels — email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web — offered as one connected journey.
- Built-in SMS gateway carries two-way conversations, with WhatsApp session and template messaging named.
- Personalisation draws on commerce behaviour — views, carts, wishlists, back-in-stock requests, price-drop alerts and purchase history.
- Ready-made integrations for Magento 2, PrestaShop, Shopify and WooCommerce, plus a Thulium contact-center link, APIs and MCP.
- Agentic AI assembles audience, content, workflow and timing from a prompt, reachable from ChatGPT, Claude and Cursor via MCP.
Held against it
- No public information on journey mechanics — branching, waits, entry or exit conditions, or journeys colliding over the same contact.
- No public information on lead scoring, lifecycle stages, qualification or routing to sales.
- No public information on consent capture, stored consent records, retention or per-contact tracking opt-out despite profiling of named shoppers.
- No CRM among the named integrations, and no public information on sync direction, field mapping or conflict handling.
- No sovereignty attributes on record, with hosting location, infrastructure and subprocessors absent.
Best for
- You run an online store on Magento 2, PrestaShop, Shopify or WooCommerce and want messaging driven by browsing and purchase behaviour.
- You want email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web handled as one journey, with two-way SMS and WhatsApp conversations built in.
- Your team works in ChatGPT, Claude or Cursor and wants to run campaign actions from there via MCP.
Avoid if
- Your motion depends on lead scoring and routing to a sales team; the captured pages evidence commerce intent signals only.
- You must see consent capture, retention rules and profiling opt-outs documented before profiling named customers — we found no public information on them.
- Your implementation hinges on a CRM integration — every integration named is an e-commerce platform or the Thulium contact center.
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 pages sell "one connected journey" across five channels and an AI that will "build the workflow" from a prompt, but show no triggers, branching, waits or entry conditions, and nothing on what happens when two journeys claim the same contact. I found no public information on frequency capping, journey priority, versioning or per-contact journey state. I cannot put pipeline on a builder I cannot see. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The pages promise one connected journey across email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web, and an agent that will build the workflow, so this is more than single-trigger autoresponders — but I found no public information on branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, per-contact journey state, or what happens when two journeys claim the same person at once. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The page promises one connected journey across email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web, and an AI agent that builds workflows, but we found no public information on triggers, branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, or what happens when journeys collide. For a platform deciding what a named person receives next, the decision layer itself is unevidenced. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The vendor's page sells "one connected journey across email, SMS, WhatsApp, push, and web" and an AI that builds the workflow, but I found no public information on triggers, branching, waits, entry or exit conditions, or per-contact journey state. The things that decide whether a programme survives contact with reality — frequency capping across journeys, priority when a contact qualifies for several, holdouts for measurement — are entirely unevidenced, so this sits just above the floor on cross-channel journey language alone. 1
The Solution Architect
Marketing copy promises one connected journey across five channels and AI that builds the workflow, but nothing documents branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, or what happens when two journeys want the same contact — the part that decides whether automation survives contact with reality. I found no public information on journey versioning, cross-journey suppression, or per-contact journey state. That sits just above an autoresponder floor. 1
The Skeptic
The page promises one connected journey across five channels and an AI that builds the workflow, but no mechanics: we found no public information on branching, waits, entry and exit conditions, or per-contact journey state, and nothing at all on what happens when journeys collide. A marketing claim of journeys is not orchestration evidence. 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
I found no public information on lead scoring, lifecycle stages, qualification criteria or routing to owners. The captured pages never mention a score, so sales has nothing here to trust or audit. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
I found no public information on lead scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners or handover to sales; nothing in the capture speaks to qualification at all, and an unevidenced capability scores as absent. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Commerce Marketing captures intent from views, carts, wishlists, price-drop alerts and purchase history, so contacts are clearly not treated alike, but we found no public information on scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, routing to owners, or the contribution of individual signals to a decision. Until scoring is documented, I cannot even begin an assessment of it as automated decision-making. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
I found no public information on lead scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, qualification or routing to sales owners. The integrations shown serve e-commerce data flows and a support contact center, and nothing on the captured page evidences a handover to sales or any score a contact could be explained by. 1
The Solution Architect
The captured pages evidence deep behavioural capture — views, carts, wishlists, back-in-stock requests, price-drop alerts, purchase history — yet I found no public information on scoring, decay, lifecycle stages, or routing and handover to sales. Nothing shows any lead being treated differently from any other contact, which is the bottom of the scale. 1
The Skeptic
Beyond commerce intent signals — views, carts, wishlists, back-in-stock requests, purchase history — we found no public information on lead scoring, lifecycle stages, qualification or routing to sales, and nothing a customer could use to explain a decision to a lead. 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
Five channels are claimed on one connected journey — email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web — with a built-in SMS gateway, two-way WhatsApp sessions, and intent capture from views, carts, wishlists and price drops that reads as behaviour-driven personalisation. I found no public information on ad-audience sync, cross-channel frequency capping or how suppression is shared across channels. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
Email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web are all listed, with a built-in SMS gateway carrying two-way conversations and a personalisation module, and the copy claims one connected journey across all of them — but I found no public information on dynamic content blocks, shared unsubscribe handling or a single suppression list across channels, so I can only partially credit the shared-profile level. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Email, SMS with a built-in two-way gateway, WhatsApp, push and web are all offered and framed as one connected journey, with on-site engagement that adapts to each visitor and email content built on behaviour rather than stored fields alone. We found no public information on ad-audience sync, cross-channel frequency capping, or shared suppression and unsubscribe handling across these channels. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
Five channels are named in one connected journey, with a built-in two-way SMS gateway, WhatsApp session handling, website engagement that adapts per visitor, and behavioural personalisation — "emails that are built on what customers actually do" drawing on views, carts, wishlists and purchase history. But I found no public information on ad-audience sync or cross-channel frequency capping, which is what keeps one profile honest across five channels, and shared suppression and unsubscribe handling are likewise not shown. 1
The Solution Architect
Five channels — email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web — are claimed as one connected journey, with a built-in SMS gateway supporting two-way conversations and personalisation explicitly built on behaviour rather than stored fields. I found no public information on shared suppression handling, cross-channel frequency capping, or ad-audience sync, so it stops short of the top band. 1
The Skeptic
Five channels are named — email, SMS, WhatsApp, push and web — with a built-in SMS gateway, two-way WhatsApp sessions, and a personalisation module, which is real breadth. But we found no public information on dynamic content blocks, shared suppression lists, or unsubscribe handling that spans channels, so whether these share one profile is assertion rather than evidence. 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
The product profiles views, carts, wishlists, back-in-stock requests and purchase history of named people, yet I found no public information on consent capture, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking switches or retention. For a platform whose value is profiling named shoppers, that silence earns the floor. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The product visibly profiles named shoppers — views, carts, wishlists, price-drop alerts, purchase history — yet I found no public information on consent capture and proof, per-channel consent states, per-contact tracking opt-out, retention or contestable automated decisions; for a platform whose value is behavioural profiling, that silence sits at the bottom of the scale. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The platform profiles named individuals through views, carts, wishlists, price-drop alerts and purchase history, yet we found no public information on consent capture or a stored consent record, on switching tracking off per contact, on retention per data category, or on handling of access and erasure requests including derived scores. Profiling of this depth with no documented consent trail or contestability is the largest gap on this page. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The platform explicitly profiles named shoppers — views, carts, wishlists, back-in-stock requests, price-drop alerts, purchase history — yet I found no public information on consent capture or stored consent records, double opt-in, tracking that can be switched off per contact, retention, or suppressing a person from profiling. For profiling this deep, I found no public information on any consent or accountability mechanism at all. 1
The Solution Architect
Behavioural profiling is clearly core — intent captured from views, carts, wishlists and price-drop alerts — but the captured pages give no consent capture, no per-channel consent states, no retention rules and no way shown to exclude a person from profiling. I found no public information on any of it, nor on a cookieless or first-party tracking mode. Profiling this deep with the consent machinery undocumented lands near the floor. 1
The Skeptic
The product's core is behavioural profiling of named people — views, carts, wishlists, purchase history feeding personalisation — yet we found no public information on consent capture or a stored consent record, per-contact tracking switches, retention rules, or any way to exclude a person from profiling. For a platform whose value is the profile, publishing nothing on its governance is the deciding fact. 1
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
APIs, MCP and ready-made integrations with Shopify, Magento, WooCommerce and PrestaShop are offered, but I found no public information on any CRM — sync direction, field mapping, deduplication rules and conflict handling are all unstated. That join is where implementations die, and it is invisible here. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
APIs, MCP and ready-made integrations exist, but every named integration is an e-commerce platform or a contact center — I found no public information on a connector to any CRM, let alone field mapping, deduplication rules, configurable conflict resolution or a sync error log I could act on before the pipeline report is wrong. 1
The Data Protection Officer
APIs, MCP and ready-made integrations with Shopify, Magento, PrestaShop and WooCommerce are listed alongside a contact-center system, but no CRM appears among the named integrations, and we found no public information on bidirectional sync, field mapping, conflict rules or identity resolution. The connectors feed behavioural data in; nothing shows how two systems stay in agreement about who a person is. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
Ready-made integrations, APIs and MCP are offered, and the named integrations are e-commerce platforms plus a support contact center; I found no public information on an integration with a CRM. Sync directionality, field mapping, deduplication rules, conflict handling and identity resolution are all unevidenced, so the join that decides the implementation cannot be assessed. 1
The Solution Architect
An API, MCP and ready-made integrations are listed, but every named integration is an e-commerce platform or a contact center — I found no public information on a CRM integration, sync direction, field mapping, or conflict rules. The joins that decide an implementation — identity resolution across anonymous and known states, custom objects, documented API rate limits, replay of failed syncs — are entirely unevidenced. That is a hair above CSV-only. 1
The Skeptic
Ready-made e-commerce integrations (Magento, PrestaShop, Shopify, WooCommerce), a contact-centre link to Thulium, and APIs and MCP for custom data flows are named. But we found no public information on any CRM integration — no CRM named, and nothing on sync direction, field mapping, deduplication rules or conflict handling, which is the join that decides the implementation. 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 contracting entity carries a Polish legal form and the brand claims 2,000+ European customers, which hints at an EU footing, but I found no public information on hosting locations, subprocessors or the basis for any data transfers. With behavioural profiles of named EU shoppers in play, I score it near the bottom. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
I found no public information on hosting location, contracting details, subprocessors or transfer safeguards, and the independent sourcing recorded no sovereignty attributes; the Polish legal form in the vendor name and the claim of 2,000+ European brands hint at an EU-centred operation, but with profiling of named residents at stake I cannot credit an unverified hint. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity's name is that of a Polish limited company and the vendor positions itself with 2,000+ European brands, but no sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, named infrastructure, or the subprocessors who would see behavioural profiles. Where named EU residents are profiled for commerce, an unnamed processing chain cannot be weighed either way. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The contracting entity's Polish company form suggests an EU entity, but no sovereignty attributes are on record and I found no public information on hosting location, infrastructure, subprocessor list, or any non-EU processing in the tracking, sending or AI chain. A "2,000+ brands across Europe" line is marketing, not evidence of EU processing, and for behavioural profiles of named EU residents that gap sits near the bottom of the scale. 1
The Solution Architect
The sovereignty record on file is empty — hosting location, infrastructure and subprocessors all absent — and the captured pages say nothing about where behavioural profiles are processed. The Polish corporate form in the vendor's legal name points to a European contracting entity, but that is the only signal: hosting is unstated and I found no public information on subprocessors. For a platform profiling named EU residents, I score this buyer-critical criterion near the bottom. 1
The Skeptic
The contracting entity carries a Polish legal form and the vendor markets to 2,000+ brands across Europe, and there the good news ends: we found no public information on where behavioural profiles are hosted, on what infrastructure, or which subprocessors see them. With heavy profiling of EU residents and no published chain, a buyer cannot assess transfers at all. 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
The captured page offers a demo and a free trial; I found no public information on tier prices, contact or send limits, overage rates or onboarding fees. The real annual invoice is unknowable without a sales call, which is the bottom score. 1
The Sales Ops Manager
The only pricing-adjacent item is a demo and free-trial offer; I found no public price figures, no contact tiers, no send limits, no feature boundaries by tier and no mention of onboarding or implementation fees — the real annual invoice is entirely a sales conversation. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The only public commercial signals are a demo and a free trial; we found no public prices, tiers, contact or send limits, overage rates, or any mention of mandatory onboarding or its cost. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual invoice from these pages. 1
The Lifecycle Marketer
The only commercial signals on the captured page are a "Get a Demo" button and a free trial; I found no public prices, tiers, contact limits, send volumes, overage rates, onboarding costs or term conditions. A buyer cannot begin to compute a real annual invoice from what is public. 1
The Solution Architect
The only pricing-adjacent item on the captured page is a "Get a Demo Free Trial" offer; no tiers, contact limits, send volumes, overage rates, onboarding costs or term conditions appear. A buyer cannot compute any part of an annual invoice from this. Free-trial availability alone keeps it barely above the floor. 1
The Skeptic
The only pricing signal on the captured page is a 'Get a Demo Free Trial' button; we found no public information on contact tiers, send limits, billing period, overage rates, or any implementation or onboarding fee. Every tier is a sales conversation, so a buyer has nothing to compute a real annual invoice with. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited 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 22 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, 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (salesmanago.com, manago.ai/gdpr, manago.ai/sms, manago.ai/web-push, manago.ai/cookies, manago.ai/integrations and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 39 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
- 13 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
- 1 legal 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
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.salesmanago.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Security / trust page — found from the homepage manago.ai Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap manago.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Channels & personalisation — found from sitemap manago.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Consent, tracking & profiling — found from sitemap manago.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap manago.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 CRM integration & data model — found from sitemap manago.ai Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →