Deliverability Benchmarks (Quantitative Reference)
Dated, vendor-attributed benchmark tables — Validity seed-measured inbox/spam/missing rates by provider, country, region, and industry; Marigold and Freshworks per-industry engagement rates; and Sinch's sender-adoption and maturity figures.
This is the KB's quantitative lookup layer: the actual numbers senders and operators ask for — "what inbox rate is normal?", "what open rate does my industry see?", "how many senders have DMARC?". The numbers come from vendor reports, so they are directional context, not ground truth. Use them to judge whether your program is roughly in-band; never as a target to game or a promise of what you'll achieve.
For what these metrics mean and the thresholds that trigger action, see Metrics & Benchmarks. For how placement and engagement are measured and why each method is biased, see Placement Measurement Methodology and Tracking & Measurement Distortion. This article does not re-explain measurement; it collects the figures.
How to read every number here (guardrails)
- Every figure is dated and attributed. A benchmark with no year and no publisher is worthless — read past it. All numbers below carry both.
- Never blend Validity seed data with Sinch survey data. They measure different things by different methods:
- Validity figures are seed-measured placement — test mailboxes report inbox/spam/missing. This observes where mail landed but has no real-recipient engagement (the structural weaknesses of seed data are catalogued in Placement Measurement Methodology).
- Marigold / Freshworks figures are engagement rates (opens, clicks, unsubscribes) computed from real sends. Engagement is not placement — a high open rate does not prove inboxing, and both are inflated/distorted by the effects in Tracking & Measurement Distortion (Apple MPP, scanner clicks). Open-rate benchmarks predating and postdating MPP are not comparable.
- Sinch figures are self-reported survey answers from senders about their own practices — subject to selection bias (respondents are ESP customers) and self-report error. They describe what senders say they do, not measured outcomes.
- Directional, not authoritative. Each vendor measures its own customer base with its own methodology. Absolute rates drift year to year and differ between reports measuring "the same" thing. The relationships (Microsoft harder than Gmail; Apple worst on placement; Finance worse than Real Estate; engagement varies ~2x across industries) are more durable than the exact percentages.
- No fabrication. Only figures printed in the source reports appear here. Where a report gives a range or a caveat, it is reproduced.
1. Inbox-placement benchmarks — Validity (seed data, 2022)
Source: Validity, 2023 Email Deliverability Benchmark. Method: seed data — Validity Everest customers send campaigns to seed addresses across hundreds of mailbox providers (MBPs) and spam filters worldwide; software records inbox / spam / missing placement, aggregated into the Everest Mailbox Provider Community. Period: the report is dated 2023 but the placement data is for calendar year 2022 ("inbox placement rates were just below 85 percent in 2022"). Only senders who consented to aggregation are included; figures are a snapshot in time. Three metrics throughout:
- Inbox placement rate (IPR) — delivered to the inbox ÷ total sent.
- Spam placement rate — delivered to the spam/junk folder ÷ total sent.
- Missing rate — accepted then deferred/blocked, never arriving in inbox or spam.
Note the contrast with the "delivered rate" ESPs show: Validity puts average combined (hard+soft) bounce rates for permission-based programs at ~1.5%, so ESP-reported "delivered" is ~98.5% — but that only measures acceptance, not placement.
Global
| Metric | Rate |
|---|---|
| Inbox | 84.8% |
| Spam | 6.1% |
| Missing | 9.1% |
Headline: roughly 1 in 6 legitimate permission-based marketing emails never reached the inbox (15.2% spam+missing); ~1 in 10 was not accepted at all.
By global mailbox provider (MAGY + Apple)
"MAGY" = Microsoft, AOL, Gmail, Yahoo. Aggregate MAGY IPR was 86% (above the global average). Gmail was the highest-performing global MBP; Microsoft the hardest; Apple substantially worse than all of them.
| Provider | Inbox | Spam | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gmail | 88.1% | 3.8% | 8.1% |
| Yahoo (incl. AOL) | 87.4% | 3.8% | 8.8% |
| Microsoft (Outlook/Hotmail) | 82.5% | 6.6% | 10.9% |
| Apple (iCloud/me.com) | 66.3% | 22.9% | 10.8% |
Validity attributes Apple's low IPR and ~3x-average spam rate largely to the difficulty of measuring engagement after Mail Privacy Protection (MPP) — senders relying on opens mail to less-responsive lists. The Apple figure is for subscribers on Apple domains, but the effect is felt more broadly because many Gmail/Microsoft/Yahoo users read via Apple Mail (see Apple iCloud Mail and Tracking & Measurement Distortion).
Mailbox-provider market share (share of a typical list)
| Provider | Relative market share |
|---|---|
| Gmail | 47% |
| Yahoo | 17% |
| Microsoft | 16% |
| AOL | 6% |
| Other | 14% |
MAGY = 87% of relative market share ("seven of every eight emails"). At least ~75% of a typical list sits with these four (effectively three, as Yahoo and AOL are one entity).
By country (9)
| Country | Inbox | Spam | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | 97.8% | 0.3% | 1.9% |
| China | 92.7% | 3.6% | 3.7% |
| Canada | 90.0% | 3.9% | 6.1% |
| United Kingdom | 89.8% | 2.2% | 8.0% |
| Australia | 89.7% | 2.4% | 7.9% |
| France | 88.7% | 2.0% | 9.3% |
| Brazil | 86.9% | 6.6% | 6.5% |
| United States | 84.6% | 6.3% | 9.1% |
| India | 68.9% | 5.7% | 25.4% |
Validity's reading: high performers (Germany, Canada) track strict-consent regimes (German double-opt-in norm, Canada's CASL); the US lags because permissioning is still predominantly opt-out; India's very high missing rate reflects prevalent email scams and weaker data quality. (The report's global map labels India 69.8%; the country detail page gives the full 68.9% / 5.7% / 25.4% breakdown used here.)
By region
Each region shows an overall figure (all MBPs including MAGY) and a regional-MBP-only figure (excluding MAGY) — regional providers filter more on rules than engagement and consistently run below the MAGY-inclusive number.
| Region | Overall Inbox | Overall Spam | Overall Missing | Regional-only Inbox | Regional-only Spam | Regional-only Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe | 91.0% | 2.0% | 7.0% | 80.2% | 9.9% | 9.9% |
| Latin America | 87.4% | 6.4% | 6.2% | 81.1% | 3.8% | 15.1% |
| North America | 84.6% | 6.3% | 9.1% | 87.9% | 3.0% | 9.1% |
| Asia Pacific | 78.2% | 3.6% | 17.2% | see split below |
Europe was the highest-performing region (91%); Asia Pacific the lowest (78%). Asia Pacific splits sharply:
| Asia Pacific sub-group (regional MBPs, excl. MAGY) | Inbox | Spam | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia & New Zealand MBPs | 90.6% | 1.1% | 8.3% |
| Asian MBPs (excl. Oceania) | 58.0% | 8.5% | 33.5% |
Major regional MBPs named per region: North America — AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Bell, Shaw, Telmex; Latin America — BOL, Terra, UOL; Europe — Alice, BT Mail, GMX, Orange, Virgin Media, T-Online; Asia Pacific — Telstra/Bigpond, QQ (Tencent), 126 (Netease).
By industry (15 verticals)
Industry sectors assigned via ZoomInfo; minimum 10 customers per sector to appear.
| Industry | Inbox | Spam | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real Estate | 97.1% | 0.8% | 2.1% |
| Media & Internet | 94.9% | 1.9% | 3.2% |
| Travel & Hospitality | 94.5% | 2.6% | 2.9% |
| Holding Companies | 91.6% | 3.5% | 4.9% |
| Construction | 90.9% | 3.3% | 5.8% |
| Healthcare | 89.8% | 6.9% | 3.3% |
| Consumer Services | 89.7% | 4.3% | 6.0% |
| Education | 89.5% | 4.6% | 5.9% |
| Software | 89.1% | 2.7% | 8.2% |
| Retail | 87.7% | 2.4% | 9.9% |
| Manufacturing | 84.7% | 3.3% | 12.0% |
| Nonprofit Organizations | 83.5% | 5.9% | 10.6% |
| Business Services | 83.4% | 7.0% | 9.6% |
| Telecoms | 80.8% | 8.4% | 10.8% |
| Finance & Insurance | 80.0% | 8.4% | 11.6% |
Business Services, Telecoms, and Finance & Insurance were the worst-performing sectors — average spam+missing ~33% above the global benchmark. Real Estate led at 97.1%.
B2B: hosting platform + filtering gateway
For B2B, mail passes both a hosting platform and often a separate third-party filtering gateway — two layers, both able to spam-folder or block. B2B IPRs run below B2C, with substantially higher missing rates. Validity notes B2B inbox placement could be as low as 68% once the hosting platform and the filtering application are considered together.
Global B2B hosting share (95% of B2B marketing mail goes to Google Workspace or Microsoft 365):
| Hosting platform | Share |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Office 365 | 48% |
| Google Workspace ("Google Apps") | 47% |
| Other | 5% |
Global hosting placement: Inbox 79.6%, Spam 4.1%, Missing 16.3%.
Global filtering-gateway share:
| Gateway | Share |
|---|---|
| Proofpoint | 46% |
| Barracuda | 15% |
| Mimecast | 15% |
| Cisco Email Security | 13% |
| Other | 11% |
Global filtering placement: Inbox 84.9%, Spam 4.6%, Missing 10.5% (close to global averages). See B2B Gateway Deliverability for how these gateways filter, rewrite links, and delist.
2. Per-industry engagement benchmarks
These measure engagement, not placement. Opens, clicks, and unsubscribes are computed from real sends and are distorted by Apple MPP (open inflation), scanner/bot clicks, and images-off false negatives — see Tracking & Measurement Distortion. Treat them as rough peer context for relative comparison within a stable audience mix, not as placement indicators. The two vendors below are kept as separate attributed tables because they use different vertical taxonomies and methods; do not merge or average across them.
Marigold (Campaign Monitor by Marigold), 19 verticals
Source: Marigold, The Essential Guide to Deliverability, "Campaign Monitor by Marigold analyzed billions of emails." Metrics: open rate, click-through rate (CTR), click-to-open rate (CTOR), unsubscribe rate. (Marigold cites Litmus for the email-ROI figure of $36 per $1; average CTR "2.3% across regions.")
| Industry | Open | Click-Through | Click-to-Open | Unsubscribe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advertising & Marketing | 20.5% | 1.8% | 9.0% | 0.2% |
| Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting | 27.3% | 3.4% | 12.5% | 0.3% |
| Consumer Packaged Goods | 20.0% | 1.9% | 11.1% | 0.1% |
| Education | 28.5% | 4.4% | 15.7% | 0.2% |
| Financial Services | 27.1% | 2.4% | 10.1% | 0.2% |
| Restaurant, Food & Beverage | 18.5% | 2.0% | 10.5% | 0.1% |
| Government & Politics | 19.4% | 2.8% | 14.3% | 0.1% |
| Healthcare Services | 23.7% | 3.0% | 13.4% | 0.3% |
| IT/Tech/Software | 22.7% | 2.0% | 9.8% | 0.2% |
| Logistics & Wholesale | 23.4% | 2.0% | 11.7% | 0.3% |
| Media, Entertainment, Publishing | 23.9% | 2.9% | 12.4% | 0.1% |
| Nonprofit | 26.6% | 2.7% | 10.2% | 0.2% |
| Other | 19.9% | 2.6% | 13.2% | 0.3% |
| Professional Services | 19.3% | 2.1% | 11.1% | 0.2% |
| Real Estate, Design, Construction | 21.7% | 3.6% | 17.2% | 0.2% |
| Retail | 17.1% | 0.7% | 5.8% | 0.1% |
| Travel, Hospitality, Leisure | 20.2% | 1.4% | 8.7% | 0.2% |
| Wellness & Fitness | 19.2% | 1.2% | 6.0% | 0.4% |
| Average totals | 21.5% | 2.3% | 10.5% | 0.1% |
Freshworks, 12 verticals
Source: Freshworks, Email Deliverability Best Practices, "data compiled from multiple industry reports" (no measurement period stated — treat as undated). Metrics: open rate, click-through rate, hard bounce, soft bounce, unsubscribe. Note the bounce columns make this table partly a list-quality benchmark, not only engagement.
| Industry | Open | Click-Through | Hard Bounce | Soft Bounce | Unsubscribe |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agriculture and Food Services | 23.1% | 3.1% | 0.40% | 0.61% | 0.23% |
| Beauty and Personal Care | 16.5% | 1.8% | 0.25% | 0.32% | 0.30% |
| Computers and Electronics | 21.4% | 2.1% | 0.45% | 0.80% | 0.27% |
| E-Commerce | 16.2% | 2.01% | 0.21% | 0.25% | 0.27% |
| Education and Training | 32.4% | 2.85% | 0.29% | 0.54% | 0.21% |
| Financial Services | 28.57% | 1.26% | 0.55% | 0.34% | 0.29% |
| Games and Sports | 29.44% | 3.44% | 0.37% | 0.44% | 0.20% |
| Health and Fitness | 21.42% | 2.83% | 0.31% | 0.40% | 0.36% |
| IT and Software | 23.1% | 2.12% | 0.40% | 0.43% | 0.27% |
| Media, Marketing, and Advertising | 23.9% | 3.12% | 0.21% | 0.28% | 0.18% |
| Real Estate, Design, and Construction | 18.97% | 1.68% | 0.41% | 0.59% | 0.28% |
| Restaurant and Dining | 24.01% | 1.47% | 0.32% | 0.51% | 0.31% |
The two tables disagree on levels for nominally similar verticals (e.g. Marigold Retail open 17.1% vs Freshworks E-Commerce 16.2%; Marigold Education 28.5% vs Freshworks Education 32.4%) — a direct illustration of why cross-vendor engagement numbers must not be pooled.
3. Sender adoption & maturity — Sinch (survey, July 2024)
Source: merged from Sinch Mailgun, State of Email Deliverability 2025 and Sinch Mailjet, Road to the Inbox 2025. Both reports draw on the same survey: conducted by Sinch in July 2024, 1,100+ email senders across the US, UK, France, Germany, and Spain, drawn from Mailjet, Mailgun, and Email on Acid users; invited by email/in-app, one incentivized prize. Figures are self-reported by ESP customers — read as what senders say they do, not measured outcomes, and not comparable to the Validity placement data above. Where both reports cite the same statistic (e.g. DMARC 53.8%), it is one figure from one survey, reported below once.
Respondent skew worth noting when generalizing: 62.5% send fewer than 50,000 emails/month; 52.3% have ≤10 employees. This is a small-sender-heavy sample.
Authentication adoption
| Metric | Value | Source detail |
|---|---|---|
| Using DMARC (2024) | 53.8% | up from 42.6% in 2023 (an 11-point / ~11% rise, attributed to the Feb 2024 Google/Yahoo requirements) |
| Bulk / highest-volume senders using DMARC | ~56% (2023) → ~70%+ (2024) | adoption rose fastest among high-volume senders |
| Using both SPF and DKIM | 66.2% | ~9% use only one; >25% unsure |
DMARC policy = p=none |
~31.8% | most common policy |
DMARC policy = p=quarantine |
~19.3% | |
DMARC policy = p=reject |
~17.7% | |
| Unsure of their DMARC policy | ~31.3% | down from >40% in 2023 (awareness rose with adoption) |
| Implemented BIMI | <6% | +11.4% "working on it"; 24.5% unsure |
The bulk of DMARC users sit at p=none, which provides no enforcement — Sinch and cited experts flag this as the maturity gap: adoption rose, but most senders have not moved to an enforcing policy. See DMARC Deployment for the rollout path and BIMI for the p=quarantine/p=reject prerequisite. Google/Yahoo required only p=none at launch; a stricter minimum is expected — see Gmail Sender Requirements and Yahoo Sender Requirements.
The delivery-rate misconception
Sinch's headline finding: senders systematically misunderstand what "delivery rate" measures. Asked to define it:
| Belief about "delivery rate" | Share |
|---|---|
| Thinks it = % of emails that reach the inbox (wrong) | 50.9% |
| Thinks it = overall deliverability (wrong) | 22.8% |
| "Don't know" | 11.6% |
| Thinks it = total emails sent (wrong) | 2.5% |
| Correctly = % delivered to any folder (incl. spam) | 12.3% |
~88% could not correctly identify what delivery rate measures. Delivery rate counts mail accepted into any folder, spam included — a 98% delivery rate says nothing about inboxing. This is exactly the "delivered ≠ inbox" trap the Metrics & Benchmarks and Placement Measurement Methodology articles warn about, quantified.
Monitoring & list-hygiene behavior
| Practice | Value |
|---|---|
| Rate importance of deliverability 8/10 or higher | 78.5% |
| Feel "very confident" in deliverability knowledge | 27% |
| Call "staying out of spam" a major challenge | 48% |
| Not monitoring reputation with major MBPs (e.g. Gmail Postmaster Tools) | 70% |
| Began using Google Postmaster Tools after the 2024 requirements | 19.2% |
| Actively monitor open & click rates | 57.4% |
| Actively monitor delivery rate | 53.1% |
| Actively monitor bounce rate | 46.5% |
| Actively monitor unsubscribe rate | 39.5% |
| Actively monitor spam-complaint rate | 32% |
| Monitor email blocklists | 32.7% (>50% do not; 14.5% unsure) |
| Rarely or never conduct list hygiene | 39% |
| Have a sunset policy for unengaged subscribers | ~24% (~59% none; ~17% unsure) |
| Admit buying a list or scraping addresses | 9.4% |
| Use a double opt-in to confirm new subscribers | ~40% |
| Separate transactional and promotional mail streams | ~37% (50.3% do not; 12.6% unsure) |
Post-requirements actions senders reported taking: 37% began closely monitoring spam-complaint rate; 35.8% increased list hygiene; 33.1% implemented RFC 8058 one-click unsubscribe; 19.2% adopted Google Postmaster Tools; 18.6% adjusted sending frequency; 12.5% changed their opt-in process. Fewer than a quarter (23%) reported any deliverability trouble attributable to the Google/Yahoo changes.
Only 32% monitor the spam-complaint rate despite the 0.3% Gmail/Yahoo enforcement threshold — the metric most directly tied to the requirement is among the least watched. See Google Postmaster Tools, List-Unsubscribe & One-Click, and List Hygiene & Sunset Policies.
Apple Branded Mail vs BIMI (Marigold)
Source: Marigold, The Essential Guide to Deliverability (not survey data — a feature comparison). Two ways to display a brand logo in the inbox:
| BIMI | Apple Business Connect — Branded Mail | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it displays | Multiple providers incl. Gmail, Yahoo, Fastmail, Apple Mail | Apple Mail only (Apple ecosystem) |
Requires DMARC at p=quarantine/p=reject |
Yes | Yes |
| Certificate cost | Verified Mark Certificate (VMC) required to display in Gmail and Apple — purchased | Free |
| Benefit | Brand recognition, trust, sender authenticity | Same |
Both require an enforcing DMARC policy — reinforcing why the p=none majority above cannot yet use either. See BIMI.
Related
- Metrics & Benchmarks — what each metric means and the thresholds/corrective actions these benchmarks are judged against
- Placement Measurement Methodology — why seed, panel, pixel, and dashboard numbers each lie in a known direction (essential context for Section 1)
- Tracking & Measurement Distortion — why the engagement rates in Section 2 are distorted (MPP, scanners, image proxies)
- B2B Gateway Deliverability — the Proofpoint/Mimecast/Barracuda/Cisco filtering layer behind the B2B numbers
- DMARC Deployment · BIMI — the standards behind the adoption figures in Section 3
- Gmail Sender Requirements · Yahoo Sender Requirements — the 2024 bulk-sender rules that drove the adoption shift
Sources
- Validity, "2023 Email Deliverability Benchmark — An Analysis of Worldwide Inbox and Spam Placement Rates" (2023; seed data for calendar year 2022)
- Marigold, "The Essential Guide to Deliverability" (Campaign Monitor by Marigold engagement benchmarks; ROI figure cites Litmus, "Email Marketing ROI: What leads to better returns?")
- Freshworks, "Email Deliverability Best Practices" (per-industry engagement benchmark table; "data compiled from multiple industry reports")
- Sinch Mailgun, "State of Email Deliverability 2025" (global sender survey conducted July 2024)
- Sinch Mailjet, "Road to the Inbox: Navigating Email Deliverability in 2025" (same July 2024 Sinch sender survey)