[pembrook]

I wasn’t criticizing you specifically, but yes, your article does seem dishonest.

Your evaluation criteria was downright silly (1), you didn’t actually try most of these tools, and your “top pick” has the highest affiliate payout (and longest affiliate window) on the list.

In fact, I have no idea how this article hasn’t been flagged since low quality affiliate listicles generally don’t make the front page here.

(1) Strict pricing models and not supporting web fonts like Inter are features, not bugs. Cheap platforms have crap quality shared IPs and 70%+ of inboxes (including most Gmail/outlook clients) don’t support web fonts at all. You’re designing something nobody will see correctly: https://www.caniemail.com/features/css-at-font-face/

[steve-benjamins]

This is an article outlining my subjective experience. My criteria is not silly — it’s based off of my experience with Mailchimp.

I don’t want an email marking tool that:

• Charged overage fees • Uses dark patterns to charge me more

[conductr]

Yet you felt the need to come post it to HN to give it a boost. It’s not like you wrote it in good faith and it organically found its way here. This is pure and simple the exact kind of content that drips of bias and deserves all the skepticism it’s receiving here in the comments.