Google Postmaster Tools vs Folderly
Zero of fourteen models named Google Postmaster Tools first on the direct prompt; two named Folderly. Google Postmaster Tools was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Folderly by eleven and Google Postmaster Tools carries 30 labels and Folderly 20, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Google Postmaster Tools
accepted challengerBy Google, Mountain View, California, United States, founded 1998. Named in one category this edition.
Named in one category this edition.
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the email deliverability and testing tools page.
By framing
Across every category in the October 2026 Edition, Google Postmaster Tools and Folderly were named in the same answer eighteen times, of the 77 answers naming Google Postmaster Tools and the 52 naming Folderly. In those answers Folderly took the first choice one time and Google Postmaster Tools four.
Every model, every framing
| Model | DirectGP | ParaphraseGP | ComparativeGP | Budget-constrainedGP | Scale-constrainedGP | NegativeGP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | ||||
| GPT-5.4 mini | ||||||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | GP | GP | |||
| Perplexity Sonar | GP | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | GP | GP | | GP | ||
| Mistral Small | | GP | GP | |||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | GP | GP | GP | GP | GP | |
| Llama 4 Maverick | GP | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | GP | GP | ||
| Kimi K2 | GP | GP | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | GP | ||||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | GP | ||
| GPT-6 Luna | GP | |||||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | GP |
FolderlyGP first choiceGP named as an alternativeGP argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Google Postmaster Tools on the left and Folderly on the right.The direct prompt
Folderly first, Google Postmaster Tools not the choice
2 of 14 modelsGoogle Postmaster Tools was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Neither was the first choice, one was named
3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Neither was named
9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
Folderly2%#13 of 15Folderly3%#6 of 12Folderly2%#6 of 14What the models said about Google Postmaster Tools
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.
“Set up Google Postmaster Tools (free) and Microsoft SNDS (free). These are the only tools that provide direct, unvarnished reputation data” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · first choice
“Best free option: Stack Google Postmaster Tools, Microsoft SNDS, Yahoo Sender Hub, MXToolbox, Mail Tester, AboutMyEmail, and Sender Hub.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · first choice
“Best overall for near-zero budget: free monitoring stack with Google Postmaster Tools, Microsoft SNDS, MXToolbox, and Yahoo Sender Hub.” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about Folderly
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of five in this category shown.
“Overpriced for most mid-market teams — many reviewers suggest MailReach as a better-value alternative.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · soft negative
“Folderly and GlockApps are top choices due to their comprehensive features and strong reputations” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“Folderly or Mailtrap would be the top choices.” MiniMax M2.5 · direct prompt · first choice
“Built specifically for B2B sales teams and lead-generation agencies running cold-email campaigns at scale” Claude Haiku 4.5 · direct prompt · alternative
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.