Skip to main content

Mailchimp vs Ortto

Ortto

Ortto

Journeys plus analytics for mid-market teams

2.3Limited

Publishers using it: —

Visit website

Last verified Nov 12, 2026

At a glance

  • Mailchimp scores 2.6/5 and Ortto scores 2.3/5 in Benchmark Grid's independent cross-channel marketing platforms benchmark, both assessed on the same 10 criteria.
  • The widest gaps are cross-channel orchestration (Mailchimp 2.8, Ortto 3.8) and deliverability & channel performance (Mailchimp 3.8, Ortto 2.8); they are within 0.3 on 1 of 10 criteria.
  • Both are built for small and mid-market publishers.
  • On total cost of ownership Mailchimp scores 3.9 and Ortto 2.8 (higher means better value, not a lower price).
  • In our tracking 17 publishers use Mailchimp and 0 use Ortto.
  • Scores last verified 12 Nov 2026. Vendors cannot pay for a score or a position.

Where they differ

Mailchimp is stronger on deliverability & Channel Performance (3.8 vs 2.8) and pricing & Scalability (3.6 vs 2.9).

Ortto is stronger on cross-Channel Orchestration (3.8 vs 2.8) and analytics & Attribution (3.7 vs 2.9).

Which one fits

Choose Mailchimp if…

  • You publish at small and mid-market scale.
  • You weight deliverability & Channel Performance, pricing & Scalability and compliance & Consent Management heavily — Mailchimp leads on those in this benchmark.

Choose Ortto if…

  • You publish at small and mid-market scale.
  • You weight cross-Channel Orchestration, analytics & Attribution and audience Segmentation & Identity heavily — Ortto leads on those in this benchmark.

Also weighing these

The nearest-scored tools to Mailchimp and Ortto in this benchmark, listed A to Z.

All 11 scored tools are in Best Cross-Channel Marketing Platforms for Publishers.

Who uses them

Publishers we have detected running each tool, from ads.txt, site code and published case studies. Agencies, brands and vendors are excluded.

Head to head

CriterionMailchimpOrtto
Audience Segmentation & Identity14% of capability3.23.6
Cross-Channel Orchestration14% of capability2.83.8
Analytics & Attribution12% of capability2.93.7
Journey Automation & Triggering12% of capability3.53.9
Personalisation & Content Delivery12% of capability3.03.2
Integration & Data Connectivity10% of capability3.43.0
Compliance & Consent Management8% of capability3.02.5
Deliverability & Channel Performance8% of capability3.82.8
Pricing & Scalability6% of capability3.62.9
Support & Implementation4% of capability3.22.7
Capability45% of composite3.23.3
Publisher fit40% of composite1.51.0
Total cost of ownership15% of composite3.92.8

Cost of ownership

Sub-scoreMailchimpOrtto
Pricing transparency4.83.0
Entry cost4.82.5
Implementation cost4.53.5
Hidden-fee risk2.52.5
Ongoing cost2.92.5

Mailchimp pricing

Free tier; paid from low monthly rates

Ortto pricing

Tiered subscription by contacts

What users say

Mailchimp

13 positive · 49 neutral · 38 negative

Ortto

10 positive · 10 neutral · 2 negative

Mentions we could not tie to a real user, and those flagged as promotional, are excluded. Sentiment is opinion, and is independent of the verified publisher adoptions above.

Mailchimp scores 2.6 and Ortto scores 2.3 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best Cross-Channel Marketing Platforms for Publishers benchmark (benchmarkgrid.com/vs/mailchimp/ortto, verified Nov 12, 2026)

Common questions

How do Mailchimp and Ortto differ?

Mailchimp is stronger on deliverability & Channel Performance (3.8 vs 2.8) and pricing & Scalability (3.6 vs 2.9). Ortto is stronger on cross-Channel Orchestration (3.8 vs 2.8) and analytics & Attribution (3.7 vs 2.9). Neither is better in the abstract — which one suits you depends on which of those dimensions carries the most weight in your operation.

Which is cheaper, Mailchimp or Ortto?

On total cost of ownership — pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost — Mailchimp scores 3.9/5 and Ortto scores 2.8/5. A higher score means better value, not a lower sticker price.

How are these scores calculated?

Each tool is assessed against its category's published criteria (10 in this benchmark), which make up Capability (45% of the composite), Publisher fit (40%) and Total cost of ownership (15%). Assessment is carried out by SODP's editorial team against a published methodology. Vendors cannot pay for inclusion, scores or positions.

Share:

Both tools are scored in Best Cross-Channel Marketing Platforms for Publishers. See alternatives to Mailchimp or alternatives to Ortto.

Weighing a third option? Add a tool to this comparison.

Related comparisons

Other head-to-heads publishers look at in Best Cross-Channel Marketing Platforms for Publishers.

Find InspirationWhat are the most popular articles on your site right now?