| Category | Function | Share | Rank | Negative rate | Labels | Quadrant | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Email deliverability and testing tools | Marketing | 0% | 34 of 110 | 17% | 6 | under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34% |
| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grok 4.1 Fast | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.
“Use EasyDMARC if you are already sending emails but seeing high bounce rates or spam folder placement” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email deliverability · budget prompt · alternative
“Best paid option for small budget: EasyDMARC (~$18/mo) or Unspam (free + ~$5/mo)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Email deliverability · budget prompt · alternative
“Authentication monitoring | EasyDMARC, MXToolbox” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email deliverability · negative prompt · alternative
“EasyDMARC (Best for Authentication)” MiniMax M2.5 · Email deliverability · direct prompt · alternative
Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.
“Use EasyDMARC for DMARC monitoring only, not for inbox placement testing.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email deliverability · negative prompt · soft negative
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 16 answers that named EasyDMARC and are not a share of its labels.
Sixty-eight of the sixty-eight domain citations in answers naming EasyDMARC came from somebody else's page.
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blog | 1,152 | 9 | 2026-09-28 | ||
| Glossary or explainer | 82 | 3 | 2026-09-22 | ||
| Webinar or virtual event | 63 | 4 | 2026-09-02 | ||
| Conference or event | 61 | 5 | 2026-09-08 | ||
| Template or tool | 42 | 0 | 2023-03-17 | ||
| Report or ebook | 34 | 1 | 2026-07-31 | ||
| Comparison | 26 | 1 | 2026-07-22 | ||
| Case study | 5 | undated | |||
| News or press | 3 | 0 | 2025-12-04 |
Every page easydmarc.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
What EasyDMARC's own pages state, read October 6, 2026: easydmarc.com, easydmarc.com/pricing/easydmarc/msp, easydmarc.com/trust, easydmarc.com/platform, easydmarc.com/blog/category/library/case-studies. A claimed page can correct any of them.
Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when EasyDMARC's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as EasyDMARC, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for EasyDMARC by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows: