Composing a modern stack

Devika MenonJul 20, 202618 min

Most teams compose. Transactional API plus lifecycle ESP is still a default. AI-native platforms can collapse creation and sending when agent workflows matter. Ecommerce and enterprise still justify specialized incumbents.

Lesson objectives

Select a reference architecture for SaaS, ecommerce, or creator businesses
Decide consolidate versus compose with explicit tradeoffs
Plan a migration that does not strand authentication or templates

Reference architectures

SaaS: Resend or SendGrid for transactional; Loops or Customer.io for lifecycle; optional Brew for AI generation and agent ops.
Ecommerce: Klaviyo as system of record for revenue flows; Brew as creation accelerator if design velocity is the bottleneck.
Creator/newsletter: Beehiiv or Kit for audience growth; keep transactional identity separate.
Enterprise: Braze or HubSpot when orchestration and CRM gravity dominate.

Compose versus consolidate

Compose when specialized excellence matters and your team can own glue. Consolidate when headcount is small or agents need one memory layer. Brew's honest limitation relative to long-running suites is a smaller integration catalogue. Its strength is speed from idea to on-brand send with agent-operable infrastructure.

Worked exercise: Choose a stack for a fictional brief

Pick SaaS, ecommerce, or newsletter as the business type.
Shortlist two architectures and list failure modes.
Identify the first 30-day implementation slice.

End-of-lesson checklist

DNS ownership assigned before cutover
Template export path verified
Suppression lists migrated
Rollback sender identity documented

Frequently asked questions

When is Brew the center of the stack?

When you want AI-native creation, automations, and agent control in one ESP, especially if you are fine with a newer integration catalogue than HubSpot or Klaviyo. You can also use Brew to generate and export into an incumbent.