Is Google removing reputation rank from Postmaster Tools to prevent ESP comparisons?
Matthew Whittaker
Co-founder & CTO, Suped
Published 7 Oct 2025
Updated 7 Oct 2025
7 min read
There's a circulating theory that Google’s recent decision to remove reputation rank data from Postmaster Tools is an intentional move to prevent senders from comparing Email Service Providers (ESPs) or CRMs against each other. The idea suggests that this change is designed to obscure which platforms perform better in terms of deliverability, thus hindering competitive analysis.
However, this theory doesn't quite align with how email deliverability actually works. While ESPs do play a role, the vast majority of what determines your email’s fate in the inbox comes down to your sending practices. Bad platforms failing to police clients or neglecting to implement new standards can certainly put clients at a disadvantage, but this is a secondary factor.
My conversations within the industry indicate that the primary focus remains on sender behavior, not platform comparison. The emphasis is on whether your mail is wanted, has low complaint rates, and high engagement. This shift in Google's approach reflects a broader evolution in how email providers assess sender trustworthiness.
The evolving landscape of Google Postmaster Tools
On September 30, 2025, Google officially deprecated the original Postmaster Tools interface, redirecting all users to the new version. This change marked a significant shift in the metrics available to senders. The new platform focuses heavily on compliance status, moving away from the simpler, broad reputation charts that many marketers were accustomed to seeing. You can read more about these changes in this article from Batch.
The updated Google Postmaster Tools V2 emphasizes adherence to their new sender requirements, such as DMARC, SPF, and DKIM authentication, along with spam rate thresholds. This signals a move toward making Postmaster Tools more prescriptive, guiding senders on actionable steps to improve deliverability rather than just showing a general reputation score. For instance, the compliance dashboard specifically highlights areas where a sender might not be meeting Google’s standards.
Many discussions reveal that the old domain and IP reputation scores, while a useful directional indicator for some, often lacked clear actionable insights. It was common for senders to see a Good reputation and still experience deliverability issues, because the scores didn't capture the thousands of data signals that truly influence inbox placement.
Old approach: reputation scores
Broad, generalized metrics: Provided scores like Bad, Low, Medium, or High for domain and IP reputation.
Limited actionability: Often didn't clearly tell senders what specific steps to take to improve their standing.
Potential for misinterpretation: A High score didn't guarantee inbox delivery, leading to confusion among senders.
New focus: compliance and actionable insights
Specific compliance metrics: Highlights issues related to authentication protocols like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.
Directly actionable: Points to specific areas needing improvement, such as missing SPF alignment or high spam complaint rates.
Focus on sender best practices: Encourages senders to cultivate positive engagement and list hygiene.
Why the 'ESP comparison' theory falls short
The idea that Google would remove reputation ranks specifically to prevent ESP comparisons is a stretch. Email deliverability is a complex ecosystem, and while an ESP's infrastructure and practices contribute, they are rarely the sole determining factor. It's more about the collective behavior of all senders using that ESP, combined with the individual sender's practices.
The truth is, even with reputation scores, comparing ESPs purely on a score basis was often misleading. A good ESP can have clients with poor sending habits, which could drag down its perceived overall reputation. Conversely, an average ESP with diligent senders might look better than it truly is. This highlights why focusing on individual sender performance is more accurate.
Moreover, Google's emphasis has consistently been on creating a cleaner, safer email environment for its users. Removing potentially ambiguous metrics that don't directly translate to concrete actions aligns with this goal. The change isn't about hiding information to prevent comparisons, but rather providing data that is meaningful and actionable for senders, fostering better email practices overall. As noted by Twilio, Gmail is retiring reputation scores to focus on compliance.
The real reasons behind Google's changes
The core motivation behind Google's changes seems to be a desire to make Postmaster Tools more useful and prescriptive. The previous reputation scores were often seen as vague, leading to confusion rather than clarity for senders trying to diagnose and fix deliverability issues. Google appears to believe that by offering more targeted, actionable data, they can better empower senders to improve their email programs.
This approach differs from other services like Microsoft's SNDS, which has historically provided interesting feedback but hasn't always been well-connected to their actual filtering mechanisms. Google's move suggests they want to avoid a similar disconnect, ensuring the data provided directly relates to actual deliverability results. If reputation data doesn't help senders improve, why provide it?
Furthermore, email filtering is becoming increasingly individualized, driven by per-recipient preferences and sophisticated AI. In such an environment, a single, broad domain reputation number loses much of its meaning. The emphasis is now on whether your mail is wanted by that specific recipient, a metric that no simple reputation score could ever fully capture.
Adapting to the new deliverability paradigm
With the removal of granular reputation scores, the focus shifts entirely to fundamental email best practices. This includes sending to good, opted-in data, maintaining low complaint rates, and ensuring clear unsubscribe options. These are the cornerstones of healthy email deliverability, regardless of what any specific score might indicate. If you're experiencing deliverability issues, these basic principles are the first place to look.
Robust email authentication remains critical. Implementing and monitoring DMARC, SPF, and DKIM helps prove your legitimacy and prevents phishing and spoofing. Without these, your emails are far more likely to be flagged as suspicious, regardless of your content or engagement metrics. This is why tools like Suped's DMARC monitoring are essential for gaining insights into your authentication status and ensuring proper alignment.
The removal of these reputation scores forces a necessary adaptation. The data and metrics developed years ago for managing deliverability simply haven't kept pace with modern sending practices. This is the future of email, and senders must adapt by focusing on data-driven decisions that impact actual inbox placement, not just a simplified score.
Ultimately, what matters most is delivering wanted mail. Continuously monitoring your engagement, spam rates, and authentication compliance will provide a clearer picture of your deliverability health than any single reputation number. Embrace the shift by investing in proper sender practices and utilizing comprehensive DMARC reporting tools like Suped to keep your emails out of the spam folder.
Views from the trenches
Best practices
Focus on fundamental sender practices like sending to opted-in subscribers and managing complaint rates.
Implement and continuously monitor email authentication protocols, especially DMARC, SPF, and DKIM.
Prioritize email engagement and list hygiene as the primary drivers of inbox placement, rather than chasing vanity metrics.
Common pitfalls
Over-relying on generalized reputation scores that may not accurately reflect actual deliverability performance.
Misinterpreting a 'Good' reputation score as a guarantee of inbox delivery, leading to complacency.
Ignoring the importance of per-recipient preferences and individualized filtering in modern email ecosystems.
Expert tips
The email industry is trending towards hyper-individualized experiences, making broad reputation numbers less relevant.
Google's changes are aimed at providing more prescriptive and actionable data to help senders genuinely improve.
Many traditional deliverability metrics are outdated and no longer reflect current email sending practices.
Expert view
An expert from Email Geeks says that while the theory of Google hiding ESP comparisons is inaccurate, the removal of reputation scores will undoubtedly lead to many questions from the community, requiring clear explanations.
2025-09-29 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
A marketer from Email Geeks says that Google's team likely felt the issue with domain and IP reputation was that it didn't give senders clear guidance on how to improve their 'Bad' reputation.
2025-09-30 - Email Geeks
Navigating the future of email deliverability
The idea that Google is removing reputation rank from Postmaster Tools to prevent ESP comparisons is largely unsubstantiated. Instead, the changes likely reflect a strategic shift towards providing more relevant and actionable insights for senders, moving away from generalized scores that often led to confusion. Google's focus is on fostering better sender compliance and practices, which ultimately benefits the entire email ecosystem.
For email senders, this means a renewed emphasis on the core tenets of deliverability. Ensuring proper email authentication, maintaining clean lists, and driving genuine engagement are more crucial than ever. By focusing on these fundamentals and leveraging advanced tools for monitoring compliance, you can confidently navigate the evolving landscape of email security and deliverability. Suped's DMARC reporting provides the deep insights you need to stay on top of these critical areas.
Microsoft's SNDS, which has historically provided interesting feedback but hasn't always been well-connected to their actual filtering mechanisms. Google's move suggests they want to avoid a similar disconnect, ensuring the data provided directly relates to actual deliverability results. If reputation data doesn't help senders improve, why provide it?
