Last reviewed 18 August 2026.
This page exists so you can judge how much weight to give what we publish. It sets out what we assess, where our information comes from, and — importantly — what we have not done.
An honest statement of our limits
We have not had hands-on production access to Campaigner. Our analysis is built from Campaigner’s own published documentation and pricing, from independent reviews and user-review platforms, and from our own experience of email marketing platforms generally.
That is a real limitation and we are not going to dress it up. It means we can tell you accurately what a feature is documented to do, how the plans are structured, what users report in aggregate, and how the offering compares on paper. It means we cannot tell you how a specific workflow behaves under load, or how responsive support is on a Tuesday afternoon.
Where a claim comes from documentation rather than use, our wording reflects that — “Campaigner’s documentation states…” rather than “we found that…”. If we ever do get sustained hands-on access, we will say so on the pages it affects.
What we assess
Every platform we cover is assessed against the same criteria, so that comparisons are like-for-like rather than a list of whatever each vendor happens to market hardest:
- Pricing structure — not just the headline figure, but what happens to it as a list grows, and what sits outside the headline price
- Core features — what is actually included at each tier rather than across the product as a whole
- Automation — the depth of workflow building, and the tier at which it unlocks
- Segmentation and personalisation — what can be targeted, and how granularly
- Integrations — particularly ecommerce and CRM, and whether they are native or need middleware
- Ease of use — weighted by who the reader is, since “simple” and “capable” pull against each other
- Deliverability — the controls offered, and what they cost
- Analytics and reporting — whether you can answer commercial questions or only vanity ones
- Support — channels, availability, and whether access is tier-gated
- Scalability — how the platform and the bill behave as the list grows
- Ecommerce, SMS and API capability — where relevant to the reader
- Limitations — stated explicitly, because every platform has them
Where our information comes from
We use sources in this order of preference, and prefer a primary source to a secondary one every time:
- The vendor’s own current documentation and pricing pages
- Independent, established software publications with a named reviewer
- Aggregated user-review platforms such as G2 and Capterra, treated as sentiment data rather than fact
- Our own general experience of the category, clearly framed as opinion
When we cite a rating drawn from a review platform, we name the platform and the date. Aggregate scores move, and a score without a date is not information.
What we do when we cannot verify something
We say so. In plain words, on the page: “we could not independently verify this”. We do not fill a gap with a plausible-sounding number, and we do not repeat a figure from another article simply because several articles agree — that is how an error becomes an internet consensus.
A concrete example: a great deal of published writing about Campaigner still quotes a plan structure the company no longer sells. Those articles are not lying; they simply never re-checked. That is the failure this policy is designed to prevent.
How we handle pricing
- Every price carries the date it was verified.
- Prices are quoted with the conditions attached — the contact tier they apply at, and the billing basis.
- Where a cost sits outside the headline price, we list it separately rather than folding it in.
- We re-verify pricing pages at least quarterly.
- Readers are pointed to the vendor’s own pricing page to confirm before purchase, because we may be out of date and they will not be.
How we build comparisons
Comparisons are assessed against the same criteria for both products, with the same weighting, and with an explicit statement of who each product suits. We do not declare a universal winner, because there is not one — the honest answer to “which is better” is almost always “for whom, and at what list size”.
We do not fabricate weaknesses in a competing product to make a favoured one look better, and we do not omit a competitor’s genuine advantage.
Related: Editorial policy · How we’re funded · Corrections policy