Compare Campaign Performance Across Timeframes
Ask how this week, month, or quarter stacks up against the last — uplift, revenue, and the campaigns that moved — without rebuilding the comparison by hand.
The question every review starts with — are we up or down versus last period? — usually takes the most manual work: pulling two windows, aligning them, and computing the deltas. With the Optimove MCP, a marketer just asks. The connector reads both windows from the live instance and returns the comparison: uplift, revenue, or your chosen KPI, campaign counts, and the specific campaigns that swung the result.
Because it compares only like for like — for example, completed campaigns that had a control group — the numbers hold up in a review. And you can pivot on the spot: swap the KPI, change the window, or ask which single campaign explains a month that went backwards.
What you need to run this use case.
| Ingredient | What to use |
|---|---|
| AI assistant | Any MCP-compatible AI assistant (Claude, ChatGPT, Copilot, and others) |
| Connector | Optimove MCP |
| Optimove data | Campaign results and KPIs across two or more time windows |
| Output | A period-over-period comparison with the movers called out |
These prompts are a baseline — a starting point to copy and adapt to your own brand, data, and goals, not a fixed script. Paste one into your assistant with the Optimove connector on, and replace anything in [brackets].
Using the Optimove MCP, compare our campaign performance for [THIS PERIOD] against [LAST PERIOD]. 1. Show uplift and [KPI, e.g. net revenue] for each window, with the change 2. Compare like for like — completed campaigns with a control group 3. Call out the campaigns that moved the result most, up or down
A clickthrough comparing this month to last, holding to control-group campaigns, and naming the movers.
The flow, step by step:
Name the two windows. Ask for the comparison and give the two periods (this week vs last, this month vs last, quarter vs quarter). the assistant pulls both from Optimove.
Keep it like for like. It compares completed campaigns with a control group so the uplift figures are sound, not skewed by sends with no holdout.
See the movers. the assistant names the campaigns that drove the change — the ones that lifted the period and the ones that dragged it.
Pivot on the spot. Swap the KPI, widen the window, or ask why a period went backwards. The comparison updates in chat.
Drop it into the review. Ask for a clean summary sized for a slide or a stand-up, and reuse the prompt each period.
One operations account ran a full quarterly CRM review through the connector, comparing periods to find $1.12M in uplift across 112 campaigns (24 statistically significant) — and flagging a month that swung from +$171K to -$32K versus the one before, with the campaigns behind the swing named in the same read.
uplift surfaced across 112 campaigns in a quarter review
campaigns isolated from the noise
a month-over-month swing caught and explained
How does it keep the comparison fair?
It compares like for like — completed campaigns that carried a control group — so period-over-period uplift is not distorted by sends with no holdout.
Can I compare any two windows?
Yes — week vs week, month vs month, quarter vs quarter, or custom dates. Just name them in the prompt.
Does it explain a drop, not just show it?
Yes. It names the specific campaigns that moved the result, so you can see what caused a period to rise or fall.