GTM AI Index
Index Marketing Mobile & push › Customer.io vs MoEngage
Mobile marketing and push · September 2026 Edition

Customer.io vs MoEngage

Six of twelve models named Customer.io first on the direct prompt; zero named MoEngage. Customer.io was named by twelve of the twelve models and MoEngage by six and Customer.io carries 27 labels and MoEngage 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Customer.io

endorsed leader

Named in seven categories this edition.

MoEngage

accepted challenger

founded 2014. Named in six categories this edition.

First-choice share34%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate7%18%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels2711A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Customer.io reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.OneSignal was named alongside these two in seven of the twelve direct answers. OneSignal vs Customer.io · OneSignal vs MoEngage · Customer.io vs Omnisend

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve 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 mobile marketing and push page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Customer.ioFirst choices, of twelve modelsMoEngage
Direct60
Paraphrase80
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained21
Negative002 against Customer.io · 2 against MoEngage
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Customer.io and MoEngage stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
Customer.io MoEngage first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Customer.io on the left and MoEngage on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Customer.io and MoEngage stood in it.

Customer.io first, MoEngage not the choice

6 of 12 modelsMoEngage was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Gemini 3.5 FlashCustomer.io alternatives: Courier, Knock, OneSignal
Perplexity SonarCustomer.io alternatives: ActiveCampaign, Courier
Mistral SmallCustomer.io alternatives: ActiveCampaign, OneSignal
DeepSeek V4 FlashCustomer.io alternatives: CleverTap, OneSignal, Vero
Qwen 3.7 FlashCustomer.io, Vero
Kimi K2Customer.io alternatives: OneSignal, Vero

Neither was the first choice, one was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Vero alternatives: Customer.io, Knock
GPT-5.4 miniBraze alternatives: Customer.io
Grok 4.1 FastOneSignal alternatives: ActiveCampaign, CleverTap, Customer.io, Pushwoosh
GLM 4.7 FlashXOneSignal alternatives: Customer.io, Pushwoosh, SendPulse
MiniMax M2.5OneSignal alternatives: ActiveCampaign, Customer.io

Neither was named

1 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

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

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Customer.io leads by two points.
Customer.io2%#9 of 19
MoEngage0%#– of 19
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Customer.io leads by thirty-two points.
Customer.io34%#2 of 17
MoEngage2%#6 of 17
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Customer.io leads by two points.
Customer.io2%#7 of 12
MoEngage0%#11 of 12
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Customer.io

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Five of five in this category shown.

“flags less public failure visibility and incompletely documented retry/fallback behavior” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Customer.io — Trustpilot Problems ... Trustpilot rating: 2.8/5” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“Customer.io is the best match for a mid-market B2B company that needs both mobile push notifications and SMS marketing in one platform” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · first choice
“OneSignal Professional, CleverTap, Customer.io, or MoEngage deliver enterprise-grade capabilities at a fraction of the cost” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Customer.io: Best for product-led growth (PLG) and B2B/SaaS companies... transparent pricing model.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · scale prompt · first choice

What the models said about MoEngage

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“If you are a startup, mid-market business, or have a small engineering team, these platforms are massive overkill.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“OneSignal Professional, CleverTap, Customer.io, or MoEngage deliver enterprise-grade capabilities at a fraction of the cost” DeepSeek V4 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
Also compared

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.