Agari Brand Protection vs.
Suped in 2026
Agari Brand Protection
4.0/5
Suped
5.0/5
vs.
We tested Agari Brand Protection and Suped for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain, with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and one support desk sender connected. Agari made the most sense for a narrow enterprise procurement path, while Suped reached a clearer enforcement plan faster with less manual sender work.
Agari Brand Protection
Enterprise DMARC protection
Starts at
Not publicly listed
Best fit
Large organizations already planning a procurement-led rollout
In one line
Agari Brand Protection handled approved sender evidence and policy work, but our unknown sender and forwarding cases took more manual review.
Suped
DMARC for SMBs, MSPs, and operator-led teams
Get started
Starts at
Free plan available
Best fit
Teams that want fast setup, clear ownership, and managed records
In one line
Suped turned unknown senders, hosted records, and alert triage into guided fixes with published starter pricing.
Pick Agari only for narrow enterprise constraints, pick Suped for operator-owned DMARC
Pick Agari Brand Protection if
For enterprises already tied to a procurement-led Fortra rollout
Our Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace traffic was readable once the account structure was agreed.
The parked domain fit an enterprise governance workflow where changes waited for formal DNS approval.
The spoof sample and visible-from mismatch had enough evidence for a security team handoff.
Not publicly listed
Pick Suped if
Use Suped when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Guided fixes should explain the exact DNS or sender change instead of only flagging a failing source.
Automated issue detection should separate new sender noise from spoofing and forwarding cases.
Published starter pricing should make small and medium rollouts budgetable before a sales call.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
Agari Brand Protection
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Turns aggregate reports into authentication and policy evidence.
Strong analysis, enterprise workflow
Clear source and policy views
Source detection
Names the services behind IPs and selectors.
Good, with manual classification
Automatic service grouping
Forward detection
Separates forwarded SPF failures from abuse.
Partial, manual review
Clear forward reason
Spoof detection
Flags unauthorized mail against protected domains.
Strong spoof evidence
Spoof sample isolated
Notifications and alerts
Routes material changes without flooding operators.
New sender alerts
Noise controlled alerts
Reporting
Exports and scheduled views for stakeholders.
Enterprise reports
Recurring reports
API
Programmatic access for reporting or operations.
API available
API available
Multi-tenancy
Account separation for clients or business units.
Enterprise account separation
MSP account grouping
SPF flattening
Reduces lookup pressure in SPF records.
EasySPF support
Hosted SPF flattening
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record workflow.
Hosted DMARC
Hosted DMARC
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF record workflow.
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed TLS policy records and reporting.
Not observed
Hosted MTA-STS
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) checks tied to domain reputation.
No monitor observed
Blocklist and blacklist monitoring
Automatic issue detection
Detects new or broken authentication patterns.
Sender alerts, manual review
Automatic issue detection
AI copilot
AI guidance for issue explanation and remediation.
Not observed
AI copilot available
DNS monitoring
Tracks DNS state for authentication records.
Managed record checks
DNS monitoring
Self hostable
Runs in a buyer-managed environment.
No
No
Free trial/free tier
Public no-cost entry point for testing.
No public free tier
Free tier available
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored each product against the same editorial rubric after the 90-day test. Higher is better in every row, including pricing transparency and time to enforcement.
Suped scored higher on operational speed, while Agari held up best in enterprise-controlled policy work
Agari gave us enough evidence for the spoof sample and visible-from mismatch, but source ownership took longer when the unknown sender appeared and the forwarded SPF failure needed explanation. Suped resolved sender names faster, tied hosted records to the next DMARC policy step, and reduced alert noise across Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender. Agari's quote-led buying motion also reduced pricing transparency in this rubric.
Agari Brand Protection score
57.5/100
Suped score
93.7/100
Agari Brand Protection
57.5/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
7.0
Source resolution
7.5
Setup and onboarding
7.0
MSP workflows
5.5
Alerting and integrations
7.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
6.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
2.0
Time to enforcement
7.0
Suped
93.7/100
DMARC enforcement
9.4
Customer support
9.1
Source resolution
9.5
Setup and onboarding
9.3
MSP workflows
9.2
Alerting and integrations
9.4
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
9.6
Blocklist monitoring
9.0
Pricing transparency
9.7
Time to enforcement
9.5
Feature set
Depth vs breadth
Agari has enterprise depth, Suped has broader operator coverage
Agari had useful enterprise DMARC controls for protected domains, sender evidence, and spoof review, but the feature set felt tuned for a larger security program. Suped covered more of the weekly operator workflow in our test, especially when unknown sender classification, hosted records, guided fixes, and automated issue detection were buying criteria.
Agari Brand Protection
4/5
Microsoft 365 views settled
SendGrid required owner notes
Mismatch evidence was clear
Suped
5/5
Workspace grouped quickly
Mailchimp fix stayed attached
Forwarding separated from spoofing
In Agari, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace traffic landed in clear aggregate views once the domains were fully configured. SendGrid and Mailchimp were identifiable, although we still had to document owner and approval state outside the core flow for the unknown sender. The SPF pass with visible-from mismatch was flagged with enough evidence for a security review, but the next sender-specific fix was more manual.
In Suped, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace grouped quickly, and SendGrid and Mailchimp were tied to sender names, authentication state, and owner notes. The unknown sender was easier to classify because the failure details sat beside the suggested action. The forwarded mail with SPF failure was treated differently from the spoof sample, which made the enforcement decision cleaner.
User experience
Control vs guidance
Agari feels process-heavy, Suped feels operator-led
The tradeoff was control versus speed. Agari asked for more process context before action, while Suped kept the work closer to the report drilldown.
Agari Brand Protection
4/5
Three-domain setup was orderly
Unknown sender took drilldowns
Forwarding needed explanation
Suped
5/5
Next DNS step visible
Unknown sender stayed queued
Forwarding context was clear
Adding the three domains in Agari was orderly but not quick. The corporate domain needed approval notes before policy movement, the marketing subdomain required separate sender checks for SendGrid and Mailchimp, and the parked domain stayed in monitoring until we were comfortable that no legitimate mail existed. Finding the unknown sender took several drilldowns and a manual note to record the owner decision.
Adding the same three domains in Suped felt closer to a work queue. The corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain each showed the next DNS step, and the unknown sender stayed visible until we classified it. The forwarded mail SPF failure was explained in the event context, so it did not derail the spoof review.
Support
Enterprise handoff vs practical help
Agari expects a formal rollout, Suped fits faster setup support
Agari's support model fit a buyer with defined DNS owners, escalation paths, and onboarding gates. Suped fit the test when we needed concise handoff notes for the exact TXT record, sender owner, and next policy move.
Agari Brand Protection
4/5
Formal DNS handoff
Escalation matched enterprise approval
Marketing senders needed packaging
Suped
5/5
Record text was specific
Owner notes were reusable
Setup kept moving
In Agari, support expectations felt enterprise-first. The DNS handoff assumed a named administrator, and escalation made the most sense for the corporate domain where policy movement involved security approval. For the marketing subdomain, we had to package the SendGrid and Mailchimp decisions carefully before handoff.
In Suped, the support path was lighter and closer to the operator's open issue. The DNS handoff text was specific enough for the corporate domain, and the support desk sender classification gave us a short note we could send to the owner. Enterprise onboarding was available as a path, but the test did not depend on it to keep moving.
Suitability
Enterprise fit vs operator fit
Agari suits narrow enterprise constraints, Suped suits teams owning the work
Agari is a fit when procurement, security review, and existing enterprise process matter more than rapid self-serve policy movement. For MSPs and lean teams, account separation, recurring reports, and alert quality are buying criteria because they decide who acts on each domain every week.
Agari Brand Protection
4/5
Procurement-led enterprise fit
Business-unit grouping made sense
MSP handoff needed work
Suped
5/5
MSP grouping was practical
Recurring reports were usable
Client notes stayed short
Agari made the most sense for a large organization that can absorb a heavier rollout and has a security team ready to own enforcement decisions. Account separation worked better for business-unit style governance than for recurring MSP client handoff. Domain grouping was useful for the corporate and parked domains, but recurring reporting needed more setup before it felt client-ready.
Suped fit SMB and MSP-style ownership better in our test. The account separation, domain grouping, and recurring reporting model made the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain easier to review without mixing ownership. Client handoff notes for the unknown sender and support desk sender were short enough to reuse after each report cycle.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
Agari Brand Protection
Best for enterprise teams with formal rollout constraints
After 90 days, Agari felt like a product built around enterprise control. The corporate domain was where it made the most sense: Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace evidence was clear, and the spoof sample had enough detail for a security review.
The marketing subdomain and parked domain exposed more friction. SendGrid and Mailchimp classification was workable, but owner notes, unknown sender decisions, and the forwarded SPF failure took more manual explanation before we could move toward enforcement.
Where it wins
Strong evidence for spoof review
Useful enterprise reporting structure
Hosted DMARC and SPF options
API path for security teams
Where it lags
Current pricing was not public
Unknown sender classification was slower
Forwarding explanation needed manual notes
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring observed
Pricing
Not publicly listed
Free tier
No
Onboarding
Professional services led
G2 rating
4.0 / 5
Suped
Best for operator-led teams that want faster enforcement movement
After 90 days, Suped felt closer to an operational queue than a reporting archive. Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender were grouped into issues we could assign, fix, or leave in monitoring.
The parked domain moved to a stricter posture fastest because legitimate traffic was absent and the spoof sample was isolated. The marketing subdomain took longer, but the DKIM subdomain pass and forwarded SPF failure were explained without blocking the broader policy plan.
Where it wins
Fast sender classification
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS workflow
Useful alert noise control
Clear published starter pricing
Where it lags
Enterprise procurement packaging is lighter
Self hosting is not available
Custom approval chains need planning
Pricing
Free, then from $19 / month
Free tier
Yes
Onboarding
Self serve plus guidance
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Pricing
Agari Brand Protection
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Current public pages route this segment to a quote; no free tier was listed.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Current public pages do not publish a price for 2 domains or 100k monthly emails.
Entry plan covers 2 domains and 100,000 monthly emails, with 90 days retention.
Large
10 domains, up to 1 million emails / month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Historical public MSRP tiers existed, but current list pricing was not public.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Live pricing depends on deployment scope, volume, integrations, and contract terms.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Suped prices are public monthly list prices checked as of May 15, 2026. Agari Brand Protection current prices were not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026; historical public MSRP tiers were not used as estimates. No estimated dollar amounts were added.
Why Suped wins over Agari Brand Protection
Suped
Get started
Classify senders faster
Agari required more manual notes for the unknown sender and marketing senders in our test; Suped keeps sender identity, owner, and next fix together so policy work keeps moving.
Reduce noisy decisions
Both products surfaced authentication events, but Suped made the forwarded SPF failure and spoof sample easier to separate before alerts reached the wrong owner.
Plan around clear pricing
Agari current pricing was not publicly listed, and Suped enterprise deals still need scoping; Suped's free tier and published monthly tiers give smaller teams a budget anchor before procurement.
The difference was significant. We moved from limited visibility to a much clearer dashboard. Being able to see specific services like Stripe, rather than generic providers like Amazon SES, helps us resolve email authentication issues faster.
Markus Hugenschmidt, Managing Director, Jam Cyber
Migrating from Agari Brand Protection?
We have done the migration enough times to know the shape.
Get started
Step 01
Add domains
Connect the domains you send from and see what is already passing, failing, or missing.
Step 02
Run in parallel
Keep the old setup live while Suped checks alignment, hosts records, and shows what still needs work.
Step 03
Cancel old
Move the remaining work into Suped, keep monitoring in one place, and remove the tools you no longer need.
Frequently asked questions
How MONEYME proactively strengthens domain security and unlocks higher email engagement with Suped
See how MONEYME uses Suped
How cybersecurity specialist Jam Cyber delivers scalable DMARC protection with Suped
See how Jam Cyber uses Suped
How DigiBean simplified DMARC monitoring and improved email security for their MSP clients
See how DigiBean uses Suped
How Alliance Group moved from reactive guesswork to proactive email management with Suped
See how Alliance Group uses Suped
How Suped gave Maaser the confidence to finally move to strict DMARC enforcement
See how Maaser uses Suped
