Contact Us

• "Is your Sequenzy ranking sponsored?" No. It reflects our testing and fit-for-use-case judgment. You can read the methodology and independence notes for the full picture.
• "Can I buy a placement or a swapped ranking?" No. Reviews and rankings are not for sale; sponsorship and display advertising are clearly labeled and never affect evaluation.
• "Will you fix the wrong price on a review?" Yes — email the specific URL and the correction to the corrections address above. Pricing changes; we re-verify and update.
• "Do you compare tool X against tool Y?" Check the comparisons index first — most head-to-heads already exist. Missing matchups are fair game for a suggestion.
• "Can I write a guest post?" Pitch it like a tool submission: outline, topic, and why our readers would care. We pay attention to concrete, non-generic content on drip strategy.

• The exact page URL (if it is about specific content)
• What you expected versus what you found
• Your business context where relevant (SaaS, e-commerce, agency) — recommendations shift a lot by business model
• List size and sending volume if you want a tool-fit opinion, since both matter to the answer

Every email is triaged the same way, so expectations are consistent:

1. Same-day read. Your email is read, not skimmed, on the first business day.
2. Category routing. Corrections route to a re-verification pass; tool submissions route to the review-queue holder; everything else gets a direct answer.
3. Substantive reply within the window. If an answer needs time (a re-test, a vendor question), we send a quick interim note rather than silence.
4. Follow-through log. Corrections and submissions get a numbered ticket, so you can ask "did this ever get done?" months later.

Three categories we consistently decline to advise on one-to-one, with alternatives that work better:

• "Which tool should I pick?" (without context). The honest answer depends on business model, list size, triggers, and existing stack — start from the comparison guide and the "best for" guides, which encode that context in the rankings.
• Legal or compliance specifics. Consent-law questions (CAN-SPAM, GDPR processing, local rules) need qualified counsel, not a review site.
• "Can you audit my account?" We publish our audit checklists and methodology instead of running private audits — it keeps the advice testable and available to everyone.

• Tone requests and negotiation coaching are outside scope — the strategy guides and blog give you the foundations for your own edits.
• Template requests: we publish what we can openly; check the templates article before requesting private ones.
• Vendor-side requests for a review update: welcome, but route through the corrections inbox with the URL you would like re-checked, and expect a re-test on current product rather than a rewrite from memory.

One more Request: use one address per issue rather than sending the same question to all three inboxes — triage routes by category, and duplicates slow the queue rather than speeding it. If an issue spans categories (corrections and sponsorships, for example), email the corrections one with a note about the other and the thread stays together.

The reviews queue favors submissions that answer the questions our testing pass starts with:

• The trigger surface. What events can drive a sequence — product events, billing events, storefront activity, or only email engagement?
• Integration posture. First-party connectors versus middleware, API limits, webhook reliability, export completeness.
• Pricing model. What drives cost (contacts, sends, profiles, seats), where features gate, and trial or free-tier terms.
• Business-model fit. Which of the site's four audience profiles the tool serves best, and which it serves poorly.

Submissions get evaluated on the same criteria as established platforms — generous arms-length evaluation is harder to buy than it is to earn.

Sometimes the question is about the site itself rather than a tool:

• "Why does the site rank one tool for SaaS but another for e-commerce?" Because the deciding features differ — billing triggers matter for subscriptions, storefront integration matters for commerce. The "best-for" guides formalize that split.
• "Is the FAQ-based rule a hard rule?" Methodological caveats appear when they affect a verdict; where criteria shift between sections, the write-up says so explicitly.
• "Can I cite this in a purchasing memo?" Yes, with attribution and a link, per the terms.

Inbound email is stored with the same care we describe in the privacy policy: access is limited to the editorial team, retention is bounded, and deletion requests are honored against whatever we hold. If you send us anything sensitive, say so in the subject line and we will keep the thread out of any aggregation notes we write for the site.

1. One email per issue, routed to the right inbox
2. Exact URL plus a quoted sentence, for corrections
3. Business context in one line (SaaS / e-commerce / agency / creator)
4. Numbers if relevant — list size, sends per month, channel mix
5. An ask, stated plainly: re-test, clarify, compare, or correct

Letters that hit these five points get the fastest and most substantive replies our queue can produce.