How AI Search Is Recommending Email Marketing Service: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Brevo remains the leader in the Email Marketing Service category, with valid recommendation coverage of 72.9% in September, up from 69.7% in July. ActiveCampaign holds second place at 65.7%, followed closely by Klaviyo at 65.3%. Both Brevo's and ActiveCampaign's moves this period stayed within the category's normal month-to-month variation.

The clearest movement this month came from three brands. Kit (ConvertKit) climbed from 37.1% in July to 48.0% in September, including a rebound from an August dip to 33.4% — a significant month-over-month gain. Campaign Monitor (Marigold) rose from 1.7% to 4.6%, a significant move though still from a small observation base. The tracked-brand roster also changed: HubSpot Service Hub, which recorded 51.4% coverage in August, is no longer part of the tracked set, while HubSpot Live Chat entered in September with 48.4% coverage in its first tracked month. This indicates the HubSpot presence in AI answers shifted to a different product line rather than disappearing from AI recommendations.

Mailchimp's valid recommendation coverage moved from 64.0% in July to 59.2% in September, a two-month decline that stays within the category's normal variation range. ActiveCampaign, Klaviyo, Constant Contact, GetResponse, and AWeber were all stable on the primary coverage metric this period.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (450, 482, and 487 unique questions across July, August, and September) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. Of those, 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in each month; 783, 781, and 774 were relevant while 17, 19, and 26 were irrelevant across the three months respectively. The public metrics use the qualified observation counts (525 in July, 545 in August, and 502 in September) that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The benchmark-level metrics below summarize the aggregate shift in answer composition between the two months, separate from any individual brand's standing.

August's intermediate reading (545 qualified observations, 54.1% recommendation-shaped answer share, 72.8% valid recommendation shortlist share) shows the category's answer mix moving toward a higher recommendation-shaped share across all three months, with September reaching the highest share of the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Brevo remains the category leader, with ActiveCampaign, Klaviyo, and Mailchimp forming the next tier. The clearest movement this month came from brands with significant month-over-month changes: Kit (ConvertKit) and Campaign Monitor (Marigold) each posted significant coverage gains, while the HubSpot roster changed as Service Hub exited and Live Chat entered.

Recommendation Coverage by Brand

Kit (ConvertKit) and Campaign Monitor (Marigold) moved beyond the category's normal month-to-month variation on the primary coverage metric, while HubSpot Service Hub's exit and HubSpot Live Chat's entry reflect a roster change rather than a gain or loss within a consistent tracked set. Brevo, ActiveCampaign, Klaviyo, Constant Contact, GetResponse, Mailchimp, and AWeber all fell within normal month-to-month variation this month.

What Changed This Month

Brevo: Stable lead as presence and top-three placement edge higher

Brevo's valid recommendation coverage moved from 69.7% in July to 71.4% in August to 72.9% in September — a two-month upward streak, though the overall move stays within the category's normal month-to-month variation. Notably, the underlying count of valid recommendations held flat at 366 in both July and September (389 in August), while the qualified observation denominator fell from 525 to 502. Most of the percentage-point gain reflects the smaller base rather than more recommendations being recorded.

Raw mention presence rose from 83.2% to 89.8% (437 to 451 present appearances), and top-three placements rose from 144 to 152 (27.4% to 30.3%). Rank-one placements slipped slightly from 38 to 36 (7.2% in both periods, on a rounded basis). Net sentiment held steady between 0.86 and 0.89.

The distinction to notice: Brevo's presence and top-three counts genuinely increased, but its valid recommendation count did not — the coverage rate improved mainly because the qualified denominator shrank.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt themes are driving Brevo's presence and top-three gains, and would a larger qualified sample confirm further growth in the underlying recommendation count?

Kit (ConvertKit): Significant rebound from the August dip

Kit (ConvertKit)'s valid recommendation coverage rose 10.9 points from 37.1% in July to 48.0% in September. The August reading dipped to 33.4%, meaning the September figure marks a significant month-over-month rebound of 14.6 points, reversing the prior month's decline.

Raw mention presence also rose, from 41.3% to 55.0% (217 to 276 present appearances). Top-three placements climbed from 42 to 80 (8.0% to 15.9%), and rank-one placements moved from zero to seven (0% to 1.4%). The underlying valid recommendation count grew from 195 to 241. Positive sentiment held near 0.91 across the period.

The distinction to notice: Kit (ConvertKit) is the only tracked brand this month with count-based increases across presence, valid recommendation coverage, and top-three placement at the same time.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which AI surfaces and prompt patterns drove the September rebound, and which brand's recommendations shifted toward Kit (ConvertKit)?

Campaign Monitor (Marigold): Significant gain from a small base

Campaign Monitor (Marigold)'s valid recommendation coverage rose from 1.7% in July to 4.6% in September, a significant move for a brand in the category's smallest tier. The August reading was 1.8%. The underlying count grew from 9 valid recommendations in July to 23 in September.

Raw mention presence rose from 5.0% to 8.0% (26 to 40 present appearances), and top-three placements moved from zero to three (0.6%). The brand still records no rank-one recommendations.

The count remains small: 23 valid recommendations out of 502 qualified observations is a meaningful percentage gain but a modest absolute base — worth tracking rather than treating as established category presence.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts now surface Campaign Monitor (Marigold), and whether they represent a durable segment or isolated query types.

HubSpot roster change: Service Hub exits, Live Chat enters

HubSpot Service Hub recorded 51.4% valid recommendation coverage in August but is absent from the September tracked set. HubSpot Live Chat enters the roster with 48.4% coverage in September, 62.0% raw mention presence, and 20.5% top-three rate, from 243 valid recommendations out of 502 qualified observations.

This is not a coverage decline for HubSpot as a company; it is a change in which product line the benchmark tracks. The gap between HubSpot Live Chat and HubSpot Service Hub shifted from negative 50.3 points in July (Service Hub ahead) to positive 48.4 points in September (Live Chat ahead), a swing of 98.7 points driven by the roster change. Separately, the gap between Brevo and HubSpot Service Hub widened every month across the series, from 19.4 points in July to 72.9 points in September — a widening that now reflects the roster exit rather than competitive movement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Did HubSpot Service Hub's exit reflect a change in how AI systems answer email marketing prompts, a benchmark instrument decision, or a shift in which HubSpot product AI surfaces recommend?

Mailchimp: Two-month decline within normal variation

Mailchimp's valid recommendation coverage moved from 64.0% in July to 62.9% in August to 59.2% in September — a two-month decline that stays within the category's normal month-to-month variation. The underlying count fell from 336 to 297, alongside a drop in raw mention presence from 91.8% to 85.3% (482 to 428 present appearances).

Mailchimp still records the highest rank-one rate in the category, at 17.7% in September (89 rank-one placements), down from 19.1% in July (100 placements). The brand also still leads all tracked brands in raw mention presence at 85.3%.

Worth watching: Mailchimp's presence and coverage have moved down for two consecutive months. The aggregate data alone cannot establish why.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which brands are gaining recommendation share in the same prompts where Mailchimp appears?

AWeber: Stable at the bottom of the category, with a wide gap to the leader

AWeber's valid recommendation coverage held at 1.8% in September, effectively unchanged from 1.9% in July (down 0.1 points), with the underlying count at 9 valid recommendations out of 502 qualified observations. This is the lowest coverage figure among the ten tracked brands, and the report records minimal presence for AWeber across surfaces this period.

Brevo records 72.9% valid recommendation coverage in September, while AWeber stands at 1.8%. The more important issue is what that gap means for AWeber's recommendation position: brands with far smaller observation bases than the category leaders — such as Campaign Monitor (Marigold), which grew from 9 to 23 valid recommendations across the same window — have moved past AWeber's count, while AWeber's own count has not grown at all. Unlike Kit (ConvertKit) or Campaign Monitor (Marigold), AWeber shows no significant month-over-month movement in either direction, meaning it has neither the downside risk nor the upside signal that would explain what is happening in the prompts where email marketing tools are recommended. Left unexamined, this is a brand that AI systems are essentially not recommending in this category.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts, if any, currently surface AWeber, and what would need to change for AWeber's valid recommendation count to move beyond its current single-digit base?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September 2026, all 502 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. No qualified observations were recorded in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison clusters. The public benchmark therefore answers which brands AI recommends, but it cannot yet answer how price, value, or head-to-head comparisons shape those recommendations. Those commercial questions require a deeper company-level analysis.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: brands with low observation counts (AWeber at 9 valid recommendations, Campaign Monitor (Marigold) at 23) can show meaningful percentage movement from very small absolute changes; interpret those rates with appropriate caution.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: percentages are calculated against the qualified observation set (502 in September), not the 800 raw prompt-surface observations collected.
• Roster change: HubSpot Service Hub exited and HubSpot Live Chat entered the tracked brand set in September; HubSpot Service Hub's coverage change reflects this instrument change, not a competitive decline.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages answer where a brand stands, but they do not reveal which high-intent prompts a brand wins or loses, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand is not chosen, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, or which external sources shape those answers. These are the questions beneath the coverage numbers and the ones that determine what to do next.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It turns the benchmark's directional signals into a concrete action plan for the prompts and surfaces that matter most.

Request an AI visibility audit