Betterme uses Yespo as their primary email service provider. They rank #25,730 in the Tranco list of most-popular domains. Email goes out from 3 different subdomains. Their email authentication setup is good (score 73/100). Missing: DMARC enforcement.
Non-ESP tools detected in this brand's emails. Independent of who sends — a brand can use any combination.
| HTML builder |
Authentication signals observed in this brand's emails. SPF, DKIM and DMARC are the standard sender-authentication stack — see the DMARC policy below for whether spoofing is actually blocked or just monitored. One-click unsubscribe meets Google & Yahoo's bulk-sender requirements.
SPF / DKIM / DMARC above reflect the last 3 emails we've observed. DMARC policy is read live from DNS.
DMARC reports sent to betterme.world. Policy
p=none is monitor-only — receivers won't act on spoofing yet.
SPF alignment: all 32 observed emails use a return-path aligned with betterme.world (mail.quiz.betterme.world, mail.mind.betterme.world, send.creators.betterme.world). SPF authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
DKIM alignment: all 28 observed emails sign with a domain aligned with betterme.world (quiz.betterme.world, mind.betterme.world, creators.betterme.world). DKIM authenticates the visible From — supports DMARC directly.
Delivery: fast — 100% of emails in the last 7 days arrive in under 10 seconds (across 3 sends).
Dynamic content: NiftyImages — real-time/personalised email content layered on top of the ESP.
Brands often use multiple ESPs (e.g. one for marketing, another for transactional/notifications).
None — only the primary ESP(s) shown aboveESPs we've seen sending email for this brand. Green = confirmed by SPF, sender IP rDNS, or known infra pairing (label shows the source). Grey = observed but not yet confirmed by SPF or PTR.
ESPs this brand has authorized in their SPF record. We confirm them with a green ✓ only after seeing recurring use (3+ emails across 2+ days). Until then they stay here — either we haven't observed any email yet, or we've seen a handful but not enough to call them a regular sender for the brand.
Probed: betterme.world, mail.quiz.betterme.world, mail.mind.betterme.world, send.creators.betterme.world, mind.betterme.world, quiz.betterme.world, creators.betterme.world
Folder distribution across all emails from this brand observed in Gmail inboxes. High inbox % = good deliverability; spam appearances are the headline signal.
| Folder | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| inbox | 18 | 85.7% |
| promotions | 3 | 14.3% |
Which ESP's emails are landing where. Sorted by spam % so problem senders surface first. Brands using one ESP for marketing and another for transactional often see very different placement profiles per ESP. Per-ESP folder data only started being captured recently — counts here may be smaller than the total above until backfill catches up.
| ESP | Emails | Placement | Inbox % | Tabs % | Spam % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yespo | 16 | 93.8% | 6.3% | 0.0% | |
| eSputnik | 3 | 33.3% | 66.7% | 0.0% |
Daily observations per ESP. Brands often run multiple ESPs concurrently — marketing on one, transactional on another — so this chart shows usage rather than switches.
IP addresses betterme.world has been observed sending from, and where their mail landed in Gmail.
| IP | Hostname | Obs | Placement | Reputation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.49.233.241 | m31.esputnik.com |
17 | 3 | Check → |
| 18.200.162.166 | m99.esputnik.com |
9 | — | Check → |
| 52.50.69.120 | m45.esputnik.com |
3 | — | Check → |
| 52.18.169.171 | m30.esputnik.com |
2 | — | Check → |
| 18.202.190.251 | m103.esputnik.com |
1 | — | Check → |
| 52.51.167.255 | m68.esputnik.com |
1 | — | Check → |
| 52.51.184.236 | m63.esputnik.com |
1 | — | Check → |
| 34.251.2.214 | m88.esputnik.com |
1 | — | Check → |