Cordial vs Opal

• Provides helpful desktop and mobile previews.
• Sends emails reliably.
• Allows for pretty robust audience rules.

Read full review

• Content planning: you can look at one asset and see how it is being used across multiple channels by multiple teams.
• Content collaboration: it is really easy to see what other people and teams are contributing to an asset, or how they are using it. We can also duplicate content that was created by another team to use as a starting point in our own content collaboration.
• High level/big picture overview: Opal allows us to see content that is being created, planned and scheduled very easily; it goes beyond social content (which we can also see in Sprinklr) to show us content created across multiple channels.

Read full review

• Some of the tasks on the platform are still technical in nature and often requires the help of a developer or technical marketer. But I've witnessed great strides towards accessibility and ease of use for non-technical marketers over the past three years.
• A lot of the templating must be built from scratch.
• Deliverability insights (out of the box) could be expanded further.

Read full review

• No publishing capabilities, for the most part.
• No analytics tie-ins.
• Rather pricey.
• Requires someone to really manage the structure in order to keep the tool organized and use it effectively. When this is done right, though, it's worthwhile.

Read full review

• Best to manage your clients' business.
• Not ideal for freelancers.

Read full review

• Opal allows for more discipline in marketing as teams are better aligned on messaging and big moments.
• Opal cuts down on communication breakdowns and mistakes, which in the end leads to more happy customers.
• I think Opal provides the team with more confidence as everyone is on the same page. With everything in one place rather than communications being lost in emails, etc., everyone is more efficient and can work knowing that there is one source of truth.

Read full review