Message test · Andreasaez

Only 1 of 15 buyers could tell what Andreasaez is.

https://andreasaez.github.io/usersnap-website-test/15 AI-simulated buyers

Your message needs work: they know who it's for and why it's worth their time, but not what it is or why to pick you.

Simulated responsesNo humans answered these questions. Every quote below was written by an AI model role-playing a buyer profile.
Share score cardDownload as markdown
Saved report, kept for 60 days — expires in 55 days. Re-opening it is free.
01

Your verdict

  • Clarity

    Fix first

    Do they understand what you do?

    Fail1 of 15

    1 could name what kind of product this is, unprompted.

  • Relevance

    Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for?

    Mixed11 of 15

    11 could quickly tell what problem it solves and who it is for.

  • Value

    Do they actually want it?

    Strong12 of 15

    12 would take a meeting to learn more.

  • Differentiation

    Is there a reason to pick you over the alternatives?

    Weak8 of 15

    8 could name a reason to pick you over a similar option.

See what they thought you were

Your page describes: product evidence platform. They said:

  • 1×Customer feedback / product roadmap toolwrong
  • 1×Product feedback / evidence platformmatches

13 couldn't name one; 1 named the wrong one; 1 got it right.

Four separate measures, not stages: all 15 personas answered all four questions. Each square is one persona.

Additional signalBrand alignment8 of 15WeakShow finding ▸

Five respondents flagged a tonal split between enterprise consolidation and procurement language and a legacy SMB self-serve voice, with hero copy aimed differently than the comparison table and FAQ. One read it as a mid-transition upmarket move. Not one of the four layers, and it does not affect the scores above or the order to fix them in.

These are 15 simulated buyers. Want 15 real ones?

Test with humans
02

Fix these first

Fix these first

Three edits, in the order that matters.

The first is on your weakest layer, the second on the next, the third on the layer the most buyers had a problem with. Each says what to change on the page and why, with one simulated answer behind it.

  1. Move "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" above the hero copy.

    Why: The problem statement sits far below the branding, so readers meet abstraction first. Leading with the wrong-features cost, then the product, gives the hero a job the buyer recognises.

    5 of 15 raised this

    “strip the jargon and it's feedback management with an AI layer bolted on”
    VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    Moves Clarity
    Problem before solution

  2. Attribute the pricing comparison to a dated, sourced external reference.

    Why: A vendor-authored cost comparison against named competitors gets dismissed outright. Cite public list prices with the date checked, or replace the claim with your own pricing math.

    3 of 15 raised this

    “they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K"…” Show full quote
    “they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K" figure or the claim that it "replaces 3 to 5 separate vendor contracts"”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    Moves Differentiation
    Proof next to the claim

  3. Name the buyer's role and company situation in the hero.

    Why: The audience is reconstructed from logos and quotes rather than stated. A line like "for product teams at B2B companies drowning in feedback across support, sales and in-app" makes the reader point at themselves.

    5 of 15 raised this

    “The intended reader took a bit longer to pin down: it's not stated outright as "this is for Directors of Product at enterprises," but the "Trusted by B2B…” Show full quote
    “The intended reader took a bit longer to pin down: it's not stated outright as "this is for Directors of Product at enterprises," but the "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line, the logos (Canva, Dynatrace, Erste Group), and the "Built for enterprise product builders" section made it obvious enough”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    Moves Relevance
    Name the audience

Keep these · 2

These landed. Keep the wording when you edit around it.

  1. Keep · Clarity

    The comparison table is the page element that makes the category and position legible

    “The comparison table actually helped me place it — they explicitly map themselves against feedback tools, engagement tools, research tools and roadmapping tools and claim to be all…” Show full quote
    “The comparison table actually helped me place it — they explicitly map themselves against feedback tools, engagement tools, research tools and roadmapping tools and claim to be all of those in one”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
  2. Keep · Relevance

    The problem statement and visual workflow land for some readers without digging

    “The problem is spelled out well enough — "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" and the four-step "Connect / Understand / Act / Engage" flow tells…” Show full quote
    “The problem is spelled out well enough — "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" and the four-step "Connect / Understand / Act / Engage" flow tells me fast this is about turning scattered feedback into prioritization decisions.”
    Product Owner, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
03

All recommendations

Clarity

Fail1 of 15
Moves ClarityPlain language

Replace the H1 with a plain statement of what Usersnap does.

Why: "The product evidence platform" and "Extraordinary evidence powers the world's best products" force readers to decode branding before learning this consolidates scattered feedback. Say it consolidates feedback from support, sales and in-app into one…

5 of 15 raised this

“strip the jargon and it's feedback management with an AI layer bolted on”
VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
Moves ClarityConcrete over abstract

Rewrite the subhead; cut "orchestrating every action so growth compounds".

Why: "Generates build-ready ideas and guards every output with evidence, orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release" could belong to any software company. Describe the mechanism: linked sources, clustered signals, ranked opportunities.

5 of 15 raised this

“strip the jargon and it's feedback management with an AI layer bolted on”
VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
Moves ClarityPlain language

Introduce "Snappy" with one line explaining what it is.

Why: Snappy appears mid-workflow doing things—linking sources, drafting changelogs—before the page says it is the AI assistant. Name it on first mention.

5 of 15 raised this

“strip the jargon and it's feedback management with an AI layer bolted on”
VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated

Differentiation

Weak8 of 15
Moves DifferentiationProof next to the claim

Add a customer proof point that names AI prioritisation specifically.

Why: Every quote—Canva, Runtastic, Dynatrace—describes visual feedback collection, while the page leads on AI clustering and ranked opportunities. The headline claim has no customer behind it.

3 of 15 raised this

“they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K"…” Show full quote
“they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K" figure or the claim that it "replaces 3 to 5 separate vendor contracts"”
Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
Moves DifferentiationGive a reason to choose you

State one reason to choose Usersnap over Productboard or Canny.

Why: Readers place the product against Productboard, Canny and Dovetail unaided, but the copy never says why it wins—only "orchestrates clean evidence", which any of them could claim. Pick a concrete edge: capture breadth, setup time, or price model.

3 of 15 raised this

“they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K"…” Show full quote
“they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K" figure or the claim that it "replaces 3 to 5 separate vendor contracts"”
Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated

Value

Strong12 of 15
Moves ValueSpecifics beat superlatives

Attach a number to the AI clustering and time-saving claims.

Why: "Ranked by frequency and impact" and evidence-backed decisions are asserted with nothing behind them. Give a measured result from a named customer beside the claim.

5 of 15 raised this

“this page gives me zero proof points for the AI accuracy claim beyond "it doesn't hallucinate," which is just an assertion. Not worth a meeting on this read…” Show full quote
“this page gives me zero proof points for the AI accuracy claim beyond "it doesn't hallucinate," which is just an assertion. Not worth a meeting on this read alone”
VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
Additional signal

Brand alignment

Weak8 of 15
Moves Brand alignmentOne clear next action

Pick one audience: drop "Start for free" or drop enterprise framing.

Why: "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" and "Built for enterprise product builders" sit next to "Snap for free in under 10 mins. No credit card required." The hero reads self-serve SMB while the body reads procurement.

5 of 15 raised this

“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run,…” Show full quote
“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run, but the hero copy ("orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release") reads like it was written by marketing for a different, more junior reader”
Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
Moves Brand alignment

Align the FAQ and comparison table voice with the hero.

Why: The comparison table and FAQ speak procurement while the hero speaks self-serve, reading as a company mid-move upmarket. Choose the buyer and hold that register across both.

5 of 15 raised this

“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run,…” Show full quote
“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run, but the hero copy ("orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release") reads like it was written by marketing for a different, more junior reader”
Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
Moves Brand alignmentName the audience

Rewrite "Built for enterprise product builders" to name a real team.

Why: "Bad data slows every team down. Usersnap orchestrates clean evidence across research, roadmaps, and integrations" is the page's most abstract passage and clashes tonally with the plain "As easy as one, two, snap." Describe the enterprise situation concretely.

5 of 15 raised this

“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run,…” Show full quote
“the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run, but the hero copy ("orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release") reads like it was written by marketing for a different, more junior reader”
Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
04

Buyer evidence

Biggest risks

A deliberately adversarial read of the same answers. Each claim was checked back against what the personas said and dropped if nothing supported it.

  • high

    The page makes readers work to learn what the product does and who it is for, and only a minority get there unaided.

    Five respondents had to decode branding language before grasping feedback consolidation and five had to reconstruct the buyer from logos and taglines, against only three who said the problem and buyer landed immediately.

  • high

    Every claim the page leads on is unsupported, so nothing on the page survives scrutiny.

    Five respondents flagged AI prioritization, clustering accuracy and best-value pricing as asserted without evidence, three dismissed the vendor-authored pricing comparison outright, and two found the customer proof covers only basic visual feedback.

  • high

    The tonal split undermines the proof, because neither audience gets the evidence it needs.

    Five respondents flagged enterprise procurement language colliding with SMB self-serve voice; separately, respondents asked for stats broken down by company size, fintech compliance detail and regulated-industry proof that the page supplies for neither…

  • medium

    The one element that works is doing the positioning job the hero copy should be doing.

    Three respondents credited the comparison table with making the category and competitive position legible, while five said the branding language obscured the mechanism and the problem statement arrives after the branding.

  • medium

    The comparison table's credibility gain is cancelled by the pricing claim sitting inside it.

    Three respondents credited the table with clarifying competitive position, but three others rejected the cost comparison specifically because it is self-graded and would require third-party verification.

  • medium

    The page is positioned for a move upmarket it has not earned the evidence to support.

    One respondent read the copy as a mid-transition upmarket move, yet enterprise-grade proof is absent: customer references cover only basic visual feedback and healthcare and regulated-industry evidence is missing.

Clarity

  • Abstract branding language hides that this is a feedback aggregation tool

    5 of 15

    “strip the jargon and it's feedback management with an AI layer bolted on”
    VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    See all 3 comments
    “the term "product evidence platform" itself and phrases like "orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release" — "orchestrating," "evidence," and "compounds" are doing a lot of…” Show full quote
    “the term "product evidence platform" itself and phrases like "orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release" — "orchestrating," "evidence," and "compounds" are doing a lot of abstract lifting before you ever get a concrete verb like "connects" or "tags,"”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    “The word "orchestrating" and the phrase "guards every output with evidence" in that first line are jargon that don't tell me what the tool does”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated

  • The comparison table is the page element that makes the category and position legible

    3 of 15 · what worked

    “The comparison table actually helped me place it — they explicitly map themselves against feedback tools, engagement tools, research tools and roadmapping tools and claim to be all…” Show full quote
    “The comparison table actually helped me place it — they explicitly map themselves against feedback tools, engagement tools, research tools and roadmapping tools and claim to be all of those in one”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    See all 3 comments
    “a feedback-aggregation-plus-AI-triage layer sitting on top of your existing support/sales tools, similar in spirit to Productboard or Dovetail”
    Product Manager, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    “It's a feedback-aggregation tool that pulls in support tickets, sales calls, and in-app comments, then uses AI to tag/cluster it and spit out a roadmap suggestion — basically…” Show full quote
    “It's a feedback-aggregation tool that pulls in support tickets, sales calls, and in-app comments, then uses AI to tag/cluster it and spit out a roadmap suggestion — basically a feedback-to-roadmap tool dressed up as a "product evidence platform." That label is marketing spin, not a real category; if I strip the jargon it's competing with Productboard/Canny/Dovetail types.”
    Senior Product Manager, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated

Differentiation

  • The self-graded pricing comparison is not believed without third-party verification

    3 of 15

    “they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K"…” Show full quote
    “they wrote that table themselves, so I'd want a third-party source (G2 grid, an analyst note, even a customer's own before/after cost breakdown) before I trusted the "$25K-35K" figure or the claim that it "replaces 3 to 5 separate vendor contracts"”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    See all 2 comments
    “the $25K-35K "best value" figure sits in a table they wrote about themselves — I'd want that verified against an actual quote before I repeat it to finance”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated

  • Customer proof does not back the AI prioritization claim the page leads on

    2 of 15

    “the named customer quotes (Canva, Dynatrace, Runtastic) are all about basic visual feedback, not the AI-prioritization "evidence chain" they're charging for”
    Product Owner, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
    See all 2 comments
    “there's nothing here that signals they've sold into healthtech or dealt with compliance-heavy buyers, which is the gap I'd need closed before taking this seriously”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated

Relevance

  • The buyer has to be inferred from logos and taglines rather than being named

    5 of 15

    “The intended reader took a bit longer to pin down: it's not stated outright as "this is for Directors of Product at enterprises," but the "Trusted by B2B…” Show full quote
    “The intended reader took a bit longer to pin down: it's not stated outright as "this is for Directors of Product at enterprises," but the "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line, the logos (Canva, Dynatrace, Erste Group), and the "Built for enterprise product builders" section made it obvious enough”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    See all 5 comments
    “The intended reader is never stated outright either — no "for Heads of Product at enterprise SaaS companies" line”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    “the reader isn't stated outright; I had to infer "enterprise product team" from the logos (Canva, Dynatrace, Erste Group) and the line "Built for enterprise product builders."”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    “The reader is never explicitly named — no "for Heads of Product at enterprise SaaS companies" — but the "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line and the…” Show full quote
    “The reader is never explicitly named — no "for Heads of Product at enterprise SaaS companies" — but the "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line and the Canva/Dynatrace/Erste logos let me infer”
    Product Manager, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    “I'd need to see my actual tools named — not "support tickets, sales calls" generically, but our specific in-app feedback vendor or a like-for-like migration path — plus…” Show full quote
    “I'd need to see my actual tools named — not "support tickets, sales calls" generically, but our specific in-app feedback vendor or a like-for-like migration path — plus a line acknowledging fintech-specific constraints like data residency or compliance review”
    Senior Product Manager, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated

  • The problem statement and visual workflow land for some readers without digging

    3 of 15 · what worked

    “The problem is spelled out well enough — "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" and the four-step "Connect / Understand / Act / Engage" flow tells…” Show full quote
    “The problem is spelled out well enough — "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" and the four-step "Connect / Understand / Act / Engage" flow tells me fast this is about turning scattered feedback into prioritization decisions.”
    Product Owner, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
    See all 3 comments
    “The "Built for enterprise product builders" line and the customer logos (Canva, Dynatrace, Erste Group) tell me who it's for — enterprise product/PM teams — without me having…” Show full quote
    “The "Built for enterprise product builders" line and the customer logos (Canva, Dynatrace, Erste Group) tell me who it's for — enterprise product/PM teams — without me having to dig. So yes, the problem and audience are both stated up front, not buried; I didn't have to hunt for it”
    Senior Product Manager, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
    “Pretty quick, actually — the "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" line tells you the problem straight away, and the whole flow (Sources → Signals →…” Show full quote
    “Pretty quick, actually — the "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" line tells you the problem straight away, and the whole flow (Sources → Signals → Roadmap → Release) plus the "Built for enterprise product builders"”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated

Value

  • The AI accuracy and time-saving claims are asserted with no proof behind them

    5 of 15

    “this page gives me zero proof points for the AI accuracy claim beyond "it doesn't hallucinate," which is just an assertion. Not worth a meeting on this read…” Show full quote
    “this page gives me zero proof points for the AI accuracy claim beyond "it doesn't hallucinate," which is just an assertion. Not worth a meeting on this read alone”
    VP of Product, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    See all 4 comments
    “But the page gives me zero of the proof I'd need to believe it actually happens: "1,200+ teams," "50M+ insights," "18,000+ features shipped" are all bare numbers with…” Show full quote
    “But the page gives me zero of the proof I'd need to believe it actually happens: "1,200+ teams," "50M+ insights," "18,000+ features shipped" are all bare numbers with no source”
    Product Owner, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
    “I'd want the "18,000+ features shipped" and "2 to 8 weeks vs days" onboarding numbers broken down by company size, because right now those are the kind of…” Show full quote
    “I'd want the "18,000+ features shipped" and "2 to 8 weeks vs days" onboarding numbers broken down by company size, because right now those are the kind of stats that sound great on a slide”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    “But the page gives me claims, not proof — "evidence-to-impact reporting" and "no taxonomy to build" are asserted, not shown, and the pricing table conveniently ranks itself best…” Show full quote
    “But the page gives me claims, not proof — "evidence-to-impact reporting" and "no taxonomy to build" are asserted, not shown, and the pricing table conveniently ranks itself best value with no real breakdown.”
    Senior Product Manager, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated

Brand alignment

  • The page reads as half enterprise and half SMB self-serve at the same time

    5 of 15

    “the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run,…” Show full quote
    “the comparison table and FAQ ("Productboard is solution-led and complex to configure") clearly were written by someone who's sat in the exact internal-selling meeting I'd have to run, but the hero copy ("orchestrating every action so growth compounds release after release") reads like it was written by marketing for a different, more junior reader”
    Head of Product, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
    See all 4 comments
    “The tone is half aimed at me — the FAQ about taxonomy, data-volume thresholds, and DPAs reads like it's answering a procurement person's actual objections — but the…” Show full quote
    “The tone is half aimed at me — the FAQ about taxonomy, data-volume thresholds, and DPAs reads like it's answering a procurement person's actual objections — but the front half with "Snappy" as a cutesy AI mascot and jargon like "guards every output with evidence" feels like it's still talking to a smaller, less skeptical buyer.”
    Product Manager, SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated
    “the cutesy mascot named Snappy — feels like it's written for a broader, more excitable audience than a burned enterprise buyer; I skim past that fluff straight to…” Show full quote
    “the cutesy mascot named Snappy — feels like it's written for a broader, more excitable audience than a burned enterprise buyer; I skim past that fluff straight to the table and FAQ”
    Senior Product Manager, Fintech · 501-1000 employeessimulated
    “They clearly sell mid-market up through enterprise now — the "$25K-35K" pricing and "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line make that obvious — but the "Snap for…” Show full quote
    “They clearly sell mid-market up through enterprise now — the "$25K-35K" pricing and "Trusted by B2B enterprise product teams" line make that obvious — but the "Snap for free in under 10 mins. No credit card required" bit feels like leftover self-serve DNA from when they sold to smaller teams, so this reads like a company mid-transition upmarket.”
    Director of Product Management, Healthtech · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
05

How this works

Who we simulated (15 personas)

15 AI-simulated personas matched to your target market. Each answered independently, without seeing your goal, the scoring criteria, or each other’s answers. Attribution is role, industry and company size only.

Director of Product ManagementHealthtech · 1001-5000 employeesEU
VP of ProductSaaS · 5000+ employeesAPAC
Product OwnerFintech · 501-1000 employeesUS
Head of ProductHealthtech · 1001-5000 employeesUK
Product ManagerSaaS · 5000+ employeesEU
Senior Product ManagerFintech · 501-1000 employeesAPAC
Director of Product ManagementHealthtech · 1001-5000 employeesUS
VP of ProductSaaS · 5000+ employeesUK
Product OwnerFintech · 501-1000 employeesEU
Head of ProductHealthtech · 1001-5000 employeesAPAC
Product ManagerSaaS · 5000+ employeesUS
Senior Product ManagerFintech · 501-1000 employeesUK
Director of Product ManagementHealthtech · 1001-5000 employeesEU
VP of ProductSaaS · 5000+ employeesAPAC
Product OwnerFintech · 501-1000 employeesUS
Methodology

Every answer on this page was written by an AI model role-playing a buyer profile, scored on Wynter’s B2B Message Layers framework. The personas were sampled in code across role, industry, company size and behavioral traits; the model wrote only the answers. Scores arrive through fixed verdict categories and the counts are computed in our own code, so no number here was written by a model.

Score details: the count and the strength

The count is how many personas cleared the bar on each question. A yes can be unhesitating or come with reservations; the scorecard counts both as a yes, and this is the only place the difference is shown. Per layer:

  • Clarity: 1 of 15, all with reservations
  • Relevance: 11 of 15, all with reservations
  • Value: 12 of 15, all with reservations
  • Differentiation: 8 of 15, all with reservations

These answers are AI-simulated and directional. Validate anything you’re betting on with real buyers, your ICPs.

Your next 3 moves

  1. 1.Move "Nothing costs more than building the wrong features" above the hero copy.
  2. 2.Attribute the pricing comparison to a dated, sourced external reference.
  3. 3.Name the buyer's role and company situation in the hero.

See what real buyers say.

A detailed, section-by-section message test report from verified B2B professionals who are actually in-market for what you sell.

Test with humans
Trusted by
HubSpotRingCentralShopifyCognismPaddleVeeamRipplingMiro
RetentionThis report is kept for 60 days, until 1 Nov 2026, then deleted along with the personas, their answers and everything derived from them. The link stays live for that whole period so it can be shared or revisited, and stops working afterwards.

The email address it was requested from is kept beyond that, because it subscribes you to the newsletter — that was the price of the report. You can unsubscribe in one click from any issue, which stops the email without affecting a report still inside its 60 days. The public report page never shows the requester’s address.