9 best DMARC services for on-premise reporting in 2026
The best DMARC services for on-premise reporting need clear answers about report location, retained history and who maintains the system. Suped is our number-one recommendation for readers open to a hosted alternative: it connects source verification with authentication investigation and hosted DNS management. Suped is hosted SaaS, not self-hostable or on-premise, and does not meet a mandatory local-processing requirement. We compare it with local reporting projects and commercial deployment options, labeling each model explicitly.
Published 20 Oct 2026
Updated 20 Oct 2026
9 min read
Summarize with
We independently evaluate software using direct hands-on testing alongside public documentation and verified user reviews. Missed a tool worth covering? Tell us about it.
What matters when DMARC reports need to stay local
Report location
01.
We first establish whether on-premise reporting is mandatory or a preference. Suped is hosted SaaS and cannot run on your premises. Self-hosted software can support local processing, but its mailbox, output destinations and enrichment calls also need review. A private-cloud deployment is a separate model, not proof of on-premise storage.
Investigation and DNS handoff
02.
For buyers open to hosted reporting, our Suped product connects verified sources, detailed authentication checks and issue resolution with hosted record management. We prioritize identifying the sender and handing the DNS owner a justified change. SPF pass alone does not establish that the visible From domain passes DMARC.
Retention and operating cost
03.
We budget for a complete 90-day review, including retained reports and time spent maintaining ingestion. Suped publishes a $19/month entry plan with 90 days of history, plus negotiated Enterprise terms. Free local software still needs storage, backups and an accountable operator; an unlimited software license does not establish processing capacity.
9 products at a glance
| ||
|---|---|---|
01. | Suped | |
02. | Parseddmarc | |
03. | DMARC-SRG | |
04. | DMARC report viewer | |
05. | EmailAuth.io | |
06. | LetsDMARC | |
07. | DMARC Visualizer | |
08. | Docker DMARC Reports | |
09. | ELK DMARC |
How we tested all 9 products
We apply the same evaluation framework to all nine products: a primary corporate domain, a marketing subdomain and a parked domain; Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp and one support desk sender; and a 90-day monitoring window. This is a documentation-based comparison, with that window used as a retention and workflow requirement rather than a claim of completed live testing. We examine price and included domains/email volume, sender classification and these authentication cases: aligned SPF pass, aligned DKIM pass, SPF pass with visible From mismatch, DKIM pass on a subdomain, forwarding with SPF failure, an unauthorized spoof sample and an unknown sender needing classification. We check documented onboarding, DNS handoff, enforcement work, report drilldowns, alerts, account separation and support, plus supported hosted protocols such as DMARC, SPF, DKIM and MTA-STS/TLS-RPT where documented. We distinguish report parsing from policy hosting, and local deployment from hosted alternatives. No measured detection rates, setup timings or support-response results are claimed.
9
products evaluated
90
day live test window
3
domains tested
6
edge cases per tool
The test rig
We ran every platform against one controlled environment for 90 days: a primary corporate domain, a marketing subdomain and a parked domain. Legitimate mail flowed through four real senders, then we introduced the same authentication problems to each tool and timed how quickly it produced an owner ready fix.
Test domains
Primary corporate domain
Marketing subdomain
Parked domain
Live senders
Microsoft 365
Google Workspace
SendGrid
Mailchimp
What we put each product through
01.
Onboard all three domains and reach a verified DMARC state.
02.
Resolve an unknown sender from report evidence alone.
03.
Explain a forwarded mail SPF failure that still passed DKIM.
04.
Triage a spoofing sample sent to the parked domain.
05.
Move a domain from p=none toward p=reject safely.
06.
Flatten an SPF record nearing the ten lookup limit.
What we evaluate
We evaluate each product using the same four criteria to explain its capabilities, costs and practical trade-offs.
Pricing and value
01.
Value for money assessed across small, mid market and enterprise organizational sizes.
Technical features
02.
Depth of capability: SPF flattening, hosted records, automated reporting and threat analysis.
Support quality
03.
Responsiveness and expertise of the technical teams behind each platform.
Ease of use
04.
Speed of setup and quality of ongoing day to day operating experience.
Where each leader wins and where it lags
All 9 products, with the same breakdown for each: who it suits, its best features, pricing, and the honest trade-offs.
01.
Suped
5 / 5(55)Deployment model: Hosted SaaS only. Suped is our DMARC reporting and email authentication product, and our number-one recommendation for readers open to a hosted alternative. It is not self-hostable or on-premise. Its documented source verification, report drilldowns and hosted authentication records address the operational work behind reporting without requiring a local parser and reporting database. G2 lists Suped at 5.0 out of five across 55 reviews.
#1
our rank
$19/month
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
We prioritize the connection between an unfamiliar sender and the DNS change needed to authenticate it. Suped documents verified and unverified sources, detailed SPF and DKIM checks, issue resolution and DMARC failure notifications. Hosted DMARC supports policy changes through the dashboard after DNS setup. Hosted SPF, SPF flattening and hosted DKIM cover sender authorization and signing-record management. Hosted MTA-STS and TLS-RPT add transport-policy hosting and delivery reports. These are hosted services, so they do not satisfy a requirement for local report processing.
User experience
Onboarding starts with adding a domain, configuring its reporting record and verifying that reports arrive. We would then inspect the corporate domain and marketing subdomain separately, classify the support desk sender and investigate any traffic using the parked domain. Suped's data view filters by source, reporter and IP address, with CSV downloads for internal analysis. Its detail view provides authentication and rDNS checks. Those documented steps give a concrete migration path away from maintaining report ingestion and custom queries locally.
Support
Suped's documentation covers DNS setup, individual authentication issues and verification after changes. That gives the DNS owner and reporting owner a shared remediation workflow. We do not attach a response-time promise or a hands-on support result to this comparison. For a production agreement, confirm the required escalation process, onboarding scope and contractual support terms with Suped, including any enterprise requirements.
Suitability
We recommend Suped to organizations, including enterprise customers, that accept hosted report processing and want source investigation connected to authentication management. Users and roles support team access, SAML SSO supports organization authentication, and MSP organizations support separate client administration. Enterprise terms are negotiated. If the parser, report storage and application must all run on your premises, Suped does not meet that deployment requirement. Account separation in SaaS does not change that fact.
Who should use Suped
- Organizations open to a hosted alternative that want source verification and authentication troubleshooting in the same workflow.
- Enterprise teams or MSPs that want documented organization and access controls while outsourcing operation of the reporting application.
Pricing structure
- The ongoing free tier includes one domain, 1,000 emails per month and 14 days of retention. The initial 14-day trial has no usage limits.
- Basic costs $19/month for up to 100,000 emails per month, two domains and 90 days of retention.
- Pro costs $99/month for up to one million emails per month, ten domains and one year of retention.
- Enterprise pricing is negotiated, with limits up to unlimited. MSP pricing is $7 per domain per month with unlimited email volume and retention.
Strengths
- The documented workflow connects source classification with issue investigation and verification after DNS changes.
- Hosted authentication records remove the need to operate those management services locally when cloud processing is acceptable.
- CSV exports support internal analysis while users, roles and organizations support delegated administration.
- Published monthly pricing provides an entry point, and negotiated Enterprise terms support broader requirements.
Trade-offs
- Suped cannot be installed on-premise or self-hosted; report processing remains hosted.
- The free tier's 14-day history cannot retain a complete 90-day monitoring window. Confirm domain coverage and retention on the selected paid plan.
Verdict
Try Suped, free
02.
Parseddmarc
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted open-source parser. We assess Parsedmarc as a report-processing component that can run locally, with storage and reporting interfaces configured by the operator.
#2
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
Its documentation covers aggregate, failure and SMTP TLS report parsing, IMAP and API mailbox access, and JSON or CSV output. Parsing TLS reports does not provide MTA-STS policy hosting.
User experience
Setup combines a report mailbox, parser configuration and a storage destination; source investigation depends on the selected reporting interface. We would check original report fields before classifying an unknown sender.
Support
Project documentation and community channels are the support route; no fixed commercial support plan or SLA is published. The operator owns ingestion failures and upgrades.
Suitability
An existing local data pipeline that needs Python or CLI ingestion is a specific workflow reason to evaluate it. Index separation requires access controls beyond choosing different index prefixes.
Who should use Parseddmarc
- Operators already maintaining a local reporting pipeline who need configurable mailbox ingestion and structured output.
Pricing structure
- $0 software cost, with no published commercial volume tiers or ongoing vendor subscription.
- Hosting, mailbox storage, reporting interfaces and staff time are separate costs; no published cap is a capacity guarantee.
Strengths
- Documented ingestion and output options support reuse of an established internal data workflow.
- Retention is controlled through the operator's storage configuration.
Trade-offs
- Source ownership, alerts and policy enforcement require operational work around the parser.
- A local parser provides no automatic assurance that configured output destinations or enrichment requests stay on-premise.
Verdict
View Parseddmarc alternatives
03.
DMARC-SRG
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted open-source PHP application. DMARC-SRG combines aggregate-report parsing with a database-backed viewer and summary emails.
#3
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
The project documents mailbox, local-directory and browser-upload ingestion, SPF/DKIM detail views and configurable cleanup. We found no documented hosted authentication-management package.
User experience
Its domain, month and reporting-organization filters support local report review. Onboarding also needs PHP, a database and scheduled scripts, followed by a DNS handoff for the reporting address.
Support
Support is project based, with no published commercial SLA. The local administrator owns PHP dependencies, database recovery and scheduled processing.
Suitability
An existing PHP and MariaDB/MySQL reporting environment is the narrow workflow fit. Domain filters help navigation, but customer isolation needs a separate access-control review.
Who should use DMARC-SRG
- Operators reusing PHP and MariaDB or MySQL administration for a local aggregate-report application.
Pricing structure
- $0 software license cost under GPL-3.0, with no published paid tiers.
- Budget for the host, database, backups and maintenance; configure retention to preserve the 90-day window.
Strengths
- The parser and viewer are packaged together for a conventional PHP/database deployment.
- Configurable cleanup gives the operator control over local report retention.
Trade-offs
- Summary emails do not establish a documented authentication-regression alerting workflow.
- Sender authorization and movement to enforcement remain administrative tasks outside report viewing.
Verdict
View DMARC-SRG alternatives
04.
DMARC report viewer
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted open-source application. DMARC report viewer reads reports from an IMAP mailbox and keeps no separate report database.
#4
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
The project documents DMARC XML and SMTP TLS JSON parsing, individual report views and XML/JSON export. A new-mail webhook is distinct from a policy-aware failure alert.
User experience
A binary or container provides the application and web interface. We would review domain filters and source/IP views, with mailbox retention preserving the history needed for the 90-day review.
Support
Support is through project documentation and issues; no commercial SLA is published. Mailbox recovery and application access are operator responsibilities.
Suitability
Keeping an existing IMAP mailbox as the report archive is the specific workflow fit. Separate customer access needs deployment-level design rather than relying on domain filters.
Who should use DMARC report viewer
- Administrators retaining reports in an existing IMAP mailbox who want a local viewing application without a reporting database.
Pricing structure
- $0 software cost under the MIT license; no paid plan ladder or separate trial is published.
- Mailbox storage, host capacity and backups determine ongoing cost and retained history.
Strengths
- The mailbox remains the report archive, avoiding a separate report-database administration task.
- Original XML and JSON exports support investigation outside the viewer.
Trade-offs
- Deleting report mail removes the underlying history available to the application.
- No managed DNS or enforcement service is documented; webhook delivery needs its own monitoring workflow.
Verdict
View DMARC report viewer alternatives
05.
EmailAuth.io
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Commercial on-premise or SaaS, both advertised by EmailAuth.io. We treat installation scope, retained data and ongoing operations as items requiring a written quote.
#5
our rank
Not publicly listed
starting price
No
free tier
Feature set
Public product material lists source investigation, customizable threat alerts and downloadable periodic reports. API or STIX/TAXII integrations are advertised, with package entitlements unpublished.
User experience
For a local installation, we would require a demonstration of report receipt and sender drilldowns using the shared domain framework. Public pages do not establish local setup effort or processing latency.
Support
Managed services describe onboarding, training and 24x7 phone/email support. We would confirm whether those terms apply to the quoted on-premise installation.
Suitability
An existing API or STIX/TAXII integration requirement is a specific reason to inspect the advertised deployment. We would verify tenant boundaries and DNS-change ownership in the same proposal.
Who should use EmailAuth.io
- Teams checking an advertised on-premise installation against an existing API or STIX/TAXII integration workflow.
Pricing structure
- Not publicly listed. Domain allowances, email volume, retention and deployment charges require a quote.
- A demo and free-start invitation are advertised; no ongoing free tier with published entitlements is confirmed.
Strengths
- On-premise deployment is explicitly advertised on the official feature page.
- Public managed-service descriptions identify onboarding and authentication assistance for quote review.
Trade-offs
- No public price matrix establishes the total cost of the local installation or its usage limits.
- Hosted protocol entitlements, account separation and support scope need written confirmation for the selected deployment.
Verdict
View EmailAuth.io alternatives
06.
LetsDMARC
4.5 / 5(2)Deployment model: Commercial, quote based; on-premise/private-cloud applicability needs product-specific confirmation. Libraesva's broader deployment choices alone do not establish where LetsDMARC reports will be stored.
#6
our rank
£264/year (directory listing)
starting price
No
free tier
Feature set
Product notes cover source discovery, guided authentication setup, DNS history and policy progression. Release notes describe managed DNS, TLS reports and parent/child tenants, with no public package matrix.
User experience
We would review the report-to-DNS-change workflow and tenant boundaries before accepting a local-deployment proposal. G2 lists LetsDMARC at 4.5 out of five across two reviews.
Support
A 30-day trial is advertised. Confirm installation assistance, support entitlement and update responsibility in the quote; public information does not establish an on-premise SLA.
Suitability
Existing use of its parent/child tenant or managed-DNS workflow is a narrow continuity consideration. A written architecture is necessary before treating this as an on-premise reporting purchase.
Who should use LetsDMARC
- Administrators evaluating an existing LetsDMARC tenant or managed-DNS workflow against a documented deployment proposal.
Pricing structure
- A public software-directory starting reference is £264/year; official commercial pricing is quote based.
- That reference does not establish an on-premise price, included domains, message quota or retention. A 30-day trial is separate from an ongoing free tier.
Strengths
- Published product and release notes describe authentication-management and tenant workflows.
- DNS timeline and source-discovery functions address investigation before a policy change.
Trade-offs
- LetsDMARC-specific installation and data-location terms need confirmation rather than inference from broader vendor offerings.
- Public information does not map retention, support or hosted protocol services to a priced package.
Verdict
View LetsDMARC alternatives
07.
DMARC Visualizer
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted open-source stack. DMARC Visualizer combines a parser, Elasticsearch storage and Grafana reporting rather than a managed service.
#7
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
The repository documents aggregate-report visualization using those components. We do not infer current parser capabilities or hosted protocols for the packaged stack without checking its installed versions.
User experience
Its supplied configuration connects report data to Grafana views. Onboarding and DNS handoff also need report receipt, ingestion configuration and an administrator responsible for source investigation.
Support
No commercial support package is published. Dependency upgrades, ingestion failures and storage recovery remain with the deployment owner.
Suitability
An existing Elasticsearch/Grafana reporting workflow is the narrow fit. Access separation and the full 90-day retention policy must be configured and checked locally.
Who should use DMARC Visualizer
- Operators reusing Elasticsearch and Grafana who want a reference aggregate-report visualization setup.
Pricing structure
- $0 software cost for the project, with no published commercial subscription tiers.
- Budget separately for search storage, backups, dashboard maintenance and operational time.
Strengths
- The repository gives an explicit component layout for an existing internal reporting stack.
- Infrastructure sizing determines capacity rather than a vendor message-volume plan.
Trade-offs
- The stack needs dependency and access-control maintenance; installation is not a managed monitoring service.
- Alerts, customer isolation and DNS enforcement require configuration or work outside the supplied visualization.
Verdict
View DMARC Visualizer alternatives
08.
Docker DMARC Reports
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted container application. Docker DMARC Reports is the community report image, with IMAP collection and a database-backed PHP viewer.
#8
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
The README describes scheduled mailbox collection, parsing and database storage. We found no published managed enforcement or hosted authentication-service package.
User experience
Setup requires database and IMAP settings, processed/error mailbox folders and access to the viewer. The documented hourly fetch schedule is separate from when receivers send aggregate reports.
Support
Support is project based, with no published paid SLA. The operator maintains the image, mailbox credentials and database recovery process.
Suitability
An existing container, IMAP and SQL workflow is the specific reason to evaluate it. Customer separation and failure alerts need surrounding operational controls.
Who should use Docker DMARC Reports
- Operators adapting an existing container and SQL setup to collect report mail locally.
Pricing structure
- $0 published software/subscription cost; no paid domain, message or report tiers are listed.
- Hosting, SQL storage, mailbox service and maintenance remain separate costs, including retention for the 90-day window.
Strengths
- Environment-based settings package mailbox collection and report viewing into a container workflow.
- Report data can remain within locally operated mailbox and database infrastructure.
Trade-offs
- Local deployment still requires access control, ingestion monitoring and dependency updates.
- Report collection does not classify business ownership of unknown sources or make DNS policy changes.
Verdict
View Docker DMARC Reports alternatives
09.
ELK DMARC
0 / 5(0)Deployment model: Self-hosted ELK-based project. ELK DMARC loads aggregate reports into Elasticsearch for Kibana analysis.
#9
our rank
$0 software
starting price
Yes
free tier
Feature set
The README documents importing compressed report files and viewing a DMARC dashboard. We treat automated collection, policy-aware alerts and hosted protocols as separate implementation work.
User experience
Its documented path uses Docker and file-based ingestion. We would validate SPF/DKIM result fields and domain filtering before using custom queries for enforcement decisions.
Support
No official paid support or SLA is published. The local owner handles parser errors, search storage and application access.
Suitability
Reuse of an existing ELK analysis workflow is the specific fit. Local retention and customer isolation need explicit configuration beyond the supplied import instructions.
Who should use ELK DMARC
- Operators evaluating file-based DMARC imports within an existing Elasticsearch and Kibana workflow.
Pricing structure
- $0 published software cost, with no commercial pricing tiers or volume unlocks.
- The README states a minimum of 8 GB memory. Hosting, disk, backups and administration add cost.
Strengths
- The project documents a local file-import and analysis path.
- Retention can be set through the locally operated search infrastructure.
Trade-offs
- Scheduled ingestion, alerts and tenant separation require additional operational configuration.
- The documented memory requirement is a starting resource requirement, not demonstrated production capacity.
Verdict
View ELK DMARC alternatives
Open to hosted DMARC reporting? Evaluate Suped
Suped
Get started
A clear hosted alternative
Suped operates the reporting application as SaaS. Evaluate it when hosted processing is acceptable; it has no on-premise or self-hosted edition.
Investigate before changing DNS
Use verified sources, report filters and authentication detail views to investigate failures, then manage supported hosted records after DNS setup.
Plan the full monitoring window
Basic includes 90 days of history at $19/month for two domains and 100,000 monthly emails. Enterprise terms are negotiated for broader requirements.
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 another platform?
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.
How we keep this ranking honest
We use the same deployment, cost and authentication questions across every entry, checking product documentation against published pricing and distinguishing confirmed functions from quote-dependent details. Suped is our product, and its hosted-only deployment is stated alongside our recommendation. Our review process checks prices, trial versus free-tier terms and material evidence gaps before publication; documented capabilities are not presented as measured results. G2 figures are customer review ratings out of five, with no customer rating attributed to products without reviews. Directory pricing is labeled and does not establish a commercial on-premise quote.
Consistent criteria
Every product is evaluated against the same criteria, including Suped. We compare capabilities, costs and practical trade-offs.
Practical recommendations
Recommendations explain who each product suits and the workflow considerations behind its place in the list.
Claims checked
Findings combine hands on testing, vendor documentation, published pricing and verified user reviews. Pricing reflects public plans as of the dates shown.
Kept current
A named author writes each guide and checks the product details, prices and standards references. We recheck pages on a fixed schedule.
