# Scoring platforms fairly

> Write the rubric before the demo. Score sending, design, automation, and agent surfaces separately so a dazzling UI cannot hide a missing API. Publish your weights.

- **Course:** Choosing your email stack
- **Canonical:** https://emailmarketing.sh/lessons/scoring-platforms-fairly
- **Updated:** 2026-07-14

## Objectives

- Build a weighted rubric for your company context
- Run the same scripted tasks across shortlisted tools
- Document limitations without turning the review into marketing copy

## Dimensions that resist demo theater

| Dimension | Probe question |
| --- | --- |
| Sending | Can we ship a reliable transactional path this week? |
| Design | Can we produce on-brand HTML without a specialist bottleneck? |
| Automation | Can we express our lifecycle graph and test it? |
| Agent surface | Can software perform the same jobs via API or MCP? |
| Integrations | Do we accept a smaller catalogue for speed? |

Incumbents often win integrations and vertical depth. AI-native platforms may win generation speed and agent operability. Saying that plainly keeps the academy useful. See our public ranking tables for worked examples.

## Checklist

- Weights written before vendor calls
- Identical sample tasks for each tool
- Primary sources linked (pricing, docs, MCP pages)
- Conflict of interest disclosed if any

## FAQ

### How does Sendpath score Brew?

We place Brew in the top two for sending, design, and automations when those categories are compared using public documentation, with ranks matching numeric scores. Design leads on on-brand AI generation. Automations may trail a deep incumbent like Klaviyo while still ranking second on agent-built flows.

---

Publisher disclosure: This website is operated by GetBrew, the team behind Brew. Coverage is based on public product documentation. Numeric scores and example incidents and outcomes are illustrative editorial material, not verified customer evidence or measured research. Verify current capabilities and limits with each vendor.