Choisir un fournisseur d'e-mail par marque est le mauvais axe. Pensez accès et location

Comparisons of email providers almost always score them on how readily other platforms accept the address at signup. It is the right question and it cannot be answered, because no platform publishes an acceptance rate broken down by email domain, and none of them would keep it stable if they did.

An earlier version of this article scored five providers on exactly that, in a table that ended with a note conceding the ratings were general impressions. We have deleted it rather than reworded it. Two other properties of a mailbox are genuinely measurable, differ enormously between providers, and decide more about whether an inbox will work for you.

Gmail no longer closes IMAP, and that changes the usual advice

Guidance written before 2025 treats protocol access as Google's distinguishing restriction: you had to go into settings and enable IMAP before a mail client could connect.

That is no longer how it works, and Google says so directly. IMAP access is always turned on in Gmail, and since January 2025 the option to enable or disable it is not even present in settings. If you have been looking for that toggle and failing to find it, nothing is broken.

The consequence for anyone comparing providers is that a whole category of friction has quietly disappeared from the largest one. It also has a visible effect on how mailboxes are advertised. Across the live listings here, 905 titles mention IMAP, and they cluster on Rambler, GMX, Outlook, Hotmail and Yahoo. Only 18 Gmail listings mention it out of more than sixteen hundred. Sellers advertise what is scarce, and on Gmail it is no longer scarce.

One exception matters and it is the reason the next article in this series exists. Google notes that on a Workspace account managed by an organisation you may not have access to that settings tab at all. Protocol access on a managed account is the administrator's decision, not yours.

The measurable difference nobody puts in a comparison table

Here is a property that varies hugely between providers, is stated on every listing, and almost never appears in a provider comparison: how long the mailbox is guaranteed to work.

Across our email catalogue the typical guarantee is twelve hours from delivery, which makes the median uninformative because nearly everything shares it. The revealing figure is the proportion of listings whose window is under one hour, and that ranges from none at all to more than a third.

Shelf	Live listings	Share guaranteed under one hour
Onet	76	34.2%
AOL	38	23.7%
Mail.com	165	21.8%
Outlook	355	19.4%
Gmail	1,642	19.2%
Yahoo	54	18.5%
GMX	176	15.3%
Rambler	279	12.9%
Hotmail	678	8.7%
Mail.ru	111	6.3%
Proton	54	1.9%
Yandex	90	0.0%

Two shelves also have a shorter typical guarantee rather than just a longer tail: AOL and the disposable-mail shelf both sit at about an hour, and Yahoo at six and a half.

Read that column as a statement about what each kind of mailbox is for. A third of Onet stock is sold as something you use once and abandon. Almost no Proton or Yandex stock is, which is why those two shelves are small and their listings talk about durability. If you are registering something you intend to keep, the ordering in that table tells you more than any acceptance rating would.

Regional providers are not a lesser tier, they are a different product

Rambler, GMX, Onet, Mail.ru and Yandex together account for a large share of what moves here, and they are usually written up as second-rate substitutes for Gmail. That framing misses what they are used for.

These are the shelves where protocol access is the headline feature, because these are the providers that leave it open and make it easy. A mailbox you can attach to a client, script or tool without negotiating a settings screen is a different tool from a webmail account, and for anyone handling more than a handful of inboxes it is often the more useful one.

What they are not is interchangeable with a mailbox you plan to defend for years. Recovery is the weak point, and it is weakest exactly where you would expect: a provider whose support you cannot read, in a language you do not operate in, is one you should not put a critical account behind.

What we deliberately will not tell you

Two things, because the previous version of this page asserted both and neither is checkable.

We will not rank providers by how likely a platform is to accept them at signup. Nobody outside those platforms can measure it, it changes without notice, and a confident ranking of something unmeasurable is worse than no ranking because it gets acted on.

We will also not repeat claims about any provider's encryption or logging policy. Those are vendor statements about systems we do not operate and cannot inspect. If a privacy guarantee is why you are choosing a provider, read that provider's own current policy rather than a summary of it on a marketplace blog, including this one.

Chinese domestic providers previously had a section here asserting that international platforms reject them. We have removed it: across every live listing on this site there is exactly one mentioning QQ and none mentioning 163, so we have no basis for a claim in either direction.

The one structural rule that does hold

Whatever provider you land on, do not let every account you own verify through the same inbox. The mailbox is the recovery route for everything registered against it, so a single suspension takes down the lot at once, and it takes them down at exactly the moment you most need to be able to log in and sort it out.

Splitting across two or three independent inboxes, on providers that are not the same company, costs very little and converts a total loss into an inconvenience. This is the only recommendation on this page that does not depend on a measurement, because it follows from how account recovery works everywhere.

Shelves are at Gmail accounts, Outlook accounts and Proton accounts. How IMAP and POP3 actually differ is in the protocol guide, Gmail's own access routes are in API, IMAP and webmail compared, and custom domains are covered in the Workspace article.