Index › Products › Everest · October 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Everest

13Judge labels

3First choices

1Negative labels

8 / 14Models named it

1Category

October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

2 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Everest was named 2 times in Email deliverability, where GlockApps led with 34%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business99 of 114

under the label threshold

Mid-market49 of 110

under the label threshold

Enterprise4 of 93

under the label threshold

In email deliverability · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Everest for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
Email deliverability and testing tools	Marketing	0%	49 of 110	0%	2	under 10 labels · led by GlockApps at 34%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Everest yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Everest across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	1	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase1 label1

Comparative3 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained4 labels2

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative0 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative13 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“High-volume enterprise → Everest/Validity or SendGrid” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Email deliverability · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

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.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Everest, over the 13 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Everest was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

GlockApps7 of 131Not among the top eight

Mailgun5 of 132Not among the top eight

Litmus5 of 130Not among the top eight

SendGrid5 of 130Not among the top eight

250ok4 of 130Not among the top eight

Google Postmaster Tools3 of 130Not among the top eight

MailReach3 of 130Not among the top eight

Mailtrap3 of 130Not among the top eight

Validity Everest3 of 130Not among the top eight

Mailgun Optimize2 of 131Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Everest. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 13 answers that named Everest and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

instantly.ai6

amplemarket.com5

mailtrap.io5

saleshandy.com5

sequenzy.com5

brevo.com4

mailgun.com4

myemailverifier.com4

salesdorado.com4

securityboulevard.com4

No domain is on file for Everest, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

amplemarket.com/blog/best-email-deliverability-tools5

instantly.ai/blog/email-deliverability-monitoring-tools4

myemailverifier.com/blog/email-deliverability-tools4

salesdorado.com/en/inbound-marketing/email-testing-tools4

saleshandy.com/blog/email-deliverability-tools4

smtp.com/blog/transactional-email/best-email-deliverability-tools4

brevo.com/blog/email-deliverability-tools3

mixmax.com/blog/email-deliverability-software3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Everest

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Everest; a claim can dispute any of them.

Everest (Validity) 1

Follow Everest

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.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

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 Everest'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 Everest, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Everest by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Everest is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Everest, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.