GTM AI Index

Index › Vendors › Flodesk · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Flodesk

9Judge labels

0First choices

3Negative labels

7 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

4 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Flodesk was named 4 times in Email marketing, where ActiveCampaign led with 40%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business20 of 49

under the label threshold

Mid-market19 of 50

under the label threshold

Enterprise50 of 70

under the label threshold

In email marketing · 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 Flodesk 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
Email marketing platforms	Marketing	0%	19 of 50	25%	4	under 10 labels · led by ActiveCampaign at 40%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Flodesk yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative3 labelsNone

Budget-constrained5 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 labelNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative9 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Flodesk offers a flat $38/month for unlimited subscribers, which can beat per-subscriber tools at 2,000+ contacts” Qwen 3.7 Flash · Email marketing · budget 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.

“Flodesk retired this flat-rate structure... It now scales with your subscriber count” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Email marketing · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Flodesk, over the 9 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Flodesk was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Brevo8 of 94Not in the top three

ActiveCampaign7 of 90Not in the top three

Mailchimp7 of 90Not in the top three

MailerLite6 of 94Not in the top three

Sender6 of 91Not in the top three

EmailOctopus6 of 90Not in the top three

Constant Contact5 of 90Not in the top three

Klaviyo4 of 90Not in the top three

Beehiiv3 of 90Not in the top three

HubSpot Marketing Hub3 of 90Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. 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 Flodesk. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 2 of the 9 answers that named Flodesk and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

brevo.com2

emailvendorselection.com2

mailtrap.io2

sequenzy.com2

ventureharbour.com2

aimultiple.com1

alternativeto.net1

blog.hubspot.com1

bluehost.com1

business.com1

Fifteen of the fifteen domain citations in answers naming Flodesk came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

brevo.com/blog/best-email-marketing-services2

emailvendorselection.com/best-email-marketing-platforms2

mailtrap.io/blog/email-marketing-platforms2

mailtrap.io/blog/email-marketing-platforms-for-startups2

ventureharbour.com/email-marketing-software-tools-one-best2

aimultiple.com/email-marketing-pricing1

alternativeto.net/software/bigmailer-io1

blog.hubspot.com/marketing/best-email-marketing-services1

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

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

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at flodesk.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.