Skip to content
Corven Email SDK
Esc
↑↓navigate↵open⌘Jpreview
On this page

Compare providers for a workflow

Compare provider field support, idempotency and required account settings.

Choose a provider using the message and recovery behavior your application needs. Pricing, account entitlements and remote service capabilities change independently of the SDK; this guide compares implemented local contracts, not current subscription offers.

Resend and Postmark

Resend supports scheduling and native scoped keys, but not common metadata. Postmark supports metadata and repeated headers, but rejects scheduling and send keys. A keyed Resend workflow is therefore not a drop-in Postmark fallback.

SendGrid and Mailgun

Both support rich ordinary messages and opt-in native personalization. SendGrid uses unique headers and a regional JSON protocol; Mailgun preserves repeated headers and uses a domain-scoped multipart protocol. Their scheduling precision, tag rules and inline attachment constraints differ. Neither adapter declares native send replay authority.

SES and Microsoft Graph

SES uses explicit regional signing credentials and supports bounded ASCII tags. Graph uses a host-acquired access token and mailbox identity, with one representable body format and no common tag support. Both require reviewed mail-flow authority and provide no send key support here.

Loops and literal-message providers

Loops runs a provider-managed published template. It is not a substitute account for a literal-message route. Compare native content/profile behavior and ownership before deciding that two methods named send represent the same operation.

SMTP and HTTP providers

SMTP supplies its own explicit TLS transport and protocol-level recipient evidence. HTTP providers require a host HTTP client and provider-specific acknowledgment classification. Neither transport family automatically proves delivery or safe replay.

Before routing between any pair, check field support, then preflight every selected candidate’s effective message, key and policy. A compatible message format alone is insufficient for fallback authority.