Mailchimp Transactional Email

"An excellent, if costly, transactional email service"

Commentaires: We were experiencing spikes in bounce and spam rates with AWS's SES. We were able to switch to Mandrill in a single day and immediately saw dramatic improvement. As necessary, we later built out support for bulk sends and black list checking and scrubbing. All in all it was an easy process and a good product.

Avantages: Mandrill provides a simple and well documented API and has libraries and integrations available for many major web frameworks and languages. Making use of it for simple email sends is a fast and easy process, and it provides additional functionality for black lists, white lists, bulk sends, static IPs, etc. Their dashboard makes it extremely simple to see all the emails sent to a given address along with full content and reasons why sends failed or were delayed, which is a great for debugging and testing. They also provide analytics and send, receive, open, click, and bounce rates.

Inconvénients: The service used to be much cheaper, but costs went up sharply when it was reabsorbed back into Mailchimp. Still an excellent service, but harder to recommend without reservation.

"Reliable Transactional email Provider"

Commentaires: I'm really satisfied using mandrill as my provider

Avantages: Mandrill is a reliable transactional email provider, I've been using this provider for over 1 year and so far I don't have any problem with that. They also provide complete API documentation so we can easily connect to our project

Inconvénients: The cost for email is quite high compared to their competitor. But I choose Mandrill because I think they are more reliable than the competitor

"Great, while we had it!"

Avantages: I run a busy social network. Around 6,000 users total, and 300-400 online at any given time. Due to this, I needed a transactional email service that had great deliver-ability for invitations, verifications, password changes, etc. Mandrill was recommended to me, and we were completely happy with the service. Unfortunately, when they bundled Mandrill into Mailchimp, we couldn't afford it anymore.

Inconvénients: Unfortunately, bundling services did no favors. What previously was affordable for us no longer was. While the service is great, the way the change was implemented was sudden, leaving companies little time or recourse to find other options quickly. That solidified my decision to leave- most companies would grandfather in existing members, offer a lower rate, something. They simply provided us with addresses for other services, losing customers in the process.

"Reliable transactional email"

Commentaires: We're using Mandrill for all our transactional email needs, as and endpoint in our API concentrator. It's proven to be very robust and reliable over the years.

Avantages: Mandrill (now interated inside Mailchimp) has been a solid and reliable transactional email provider, with great delivery rates, very slow spam scores and ultra-fast reception speed. It provides useful and flexible reports and great dashboards too.

Inconvénients: In order to keep it's spam reputation high it takes some effort to set up a new email domain in Mandrill. You have to prove you own the DNS and configure a SPF/DKIM record.

"Checks and balances to make sure automatically generated emails run properly"

Commentaires: Great safeguard to make sure customers are interacting with outreach and troubleshoot problems that arise.

Avantages: As a SaaS company, we have customers that use our product and depend on automated emails to get information about their account on a daily or weekly basis. Mailchimp allows us to quickly flag whenever something has gone wrong in our system due to abnormal spikes / lapses in emails sent. It also allows our Customer facing team to see how clients are interacting with automated emails (opens, clicks, etc.) with the helpful ability to resend emails that were missed or accidentally deleted.

Inconvénients: The interface can be laggy to load, and not super intuitive how everything is laid out. Overall minor UX improvements could make a big difference between using this tool occasionally to troubleshoot issues, vs. using it more regularly to get proactive insights and reporting.