Report-URI vs.
Agari Brand Protection in 2026
Report-URI
Agari Brand Protection
vs.
We tested Report-URI and Agari Brand Protection for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain, with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and a support desk sender connected. Report-URI felt faster for technically confident teams that want self-service reporting and transparent pricing, while Agari Brand Protection fit enterprise programs that need managed enforcement, hosted records, and broader brand protection.
Report-URI
Self-service DMARC and security reporting
Starts at
From $54.99 / month
Best fit
Security and web teams that want transparent self-service reporting
In one line
Report-URI gave us clean report drilldowns and fast DNS setup; guided fixes and source owner notes are the Suped buying criteria to compare against.
Agari Brand Protection
Enterprise DMARC and brand protection
Starts at
Not publicly listed
Best fit
Large enterprises with procurement, managed onboarding, and brand abuse workflows
In one line
Agari Brand Protection gave us stronger enforcement planning and hosted record coverage, but setup and pricing depended on sales-led scoping.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn about Suped
Pick Report-URI for self-service clarity, Agari for enterprise enforcement
Pick Report-URI if
Technical security teams that want transparent self-service reporting
Our three domains were receiving reports in under an hour after DNS publish.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace pass cases were easy to separate in drilldowns.
Unknown sender classification needed manual owner notes outside the core workflow.
From $54.99 / month
Pick Agari Brand Protection if
Enterprise teams that need guided DMARC enforcement and hosted authentication
Hosted DMARC, SPF, and DKIM workflows reduced DNS back-and-forth after kickoff.
Forwarded mail with SPF failure was explained more clearly during enforcement review.
Procurement and onboarding were heavier than our SMB-style test needed.
Not publicly listed
Consider Suped if
Suped is the third option for guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership
Published starter pricing gives small teams a clear entry point before sales.
Automated issue detection should turn unknown sender spikes into owner tasks.
MSP workflows matter when the same operator manages recurring client reports.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
Report-URI
Agari Brand Protection
Suped
DMARC report analysis
How clearly each tool turns aggregate reports into usable review work.
Supported with clear drilldowns.
Supported with managed enforcement context.
Supported with guided analysis.
Source detection
How quickly we identified Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender.
Supported, with manual classification for unknown sources.
Supported with stronger sender intelligence.
Supported with source identification.
Forward detection
How well forwarded mail with SPF failure was separated from true abuse.
Manual workflow.
Supported in enforcement review.
Supported.
Spoof detection
How each product handled our unauthorized spoof sample.
Supported through failure analysis.
Supported with escalation context.
Supported.
Notifications and alerts
How useful alerts were during sender changes and failures.
Paid tier depth, with basic alerting lower down.
Supported with enterprise routing.
Supported with issue alerts.
Reporting
Recurring reporting, exports, and evidence handoff.
Supported with useful exports.
Supported with program reporting.
Supported.
API
Programmatic access for operations and reporting.
Paid tier.
Enterprise integration path.
Supported.
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, and repeated handoff work.
Partial team access, not an MSP workflow.
Enterprise account separation.
Supported for MSP workflows.
SPF flattening
Hosted or automated SPF management.
Not supported.
Supported through EasySPF.
Supported.
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record hosting or record workflow.
Reporting only.
Supported.
Supported.
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF records or flattening workflow.
Not supported.
Supported.
Supported.
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS and TLS reporting workflow.
Not supported.
Not tested.
Supported.
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) and reputation monitoring tied to DMARC operations.
Not supported.
Not a current pricing-table capability.
Supported.
Automatic issue detection
Automatic surfacing of sender, DNS, and policy problems.
Manual workflow in our test.
Supported through managed review.
Supported.
AI copilot
AI-assisted investigation or fix guidance.
Enterprise only.
Not tested.
Supported.
DNS monitoring
Monitoring for record drift and authentication changes.
Not tested as DNS monitoring.
Supported through hosted record management.
Supported.
Self hostable
Whether the product can be run on customer infrastructure.
Hosted SaaS.
Hosted service.
Not supported.
Free trial/free tier
Whether a public trial or free entry path exists.
30-day free trial.
No public free tier.
Free plan available.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric built around our 90-day setup. Higher is better in every row, and a 0.0 means the product did not support that capability in the tested scope.
Agari scored higher on enforcement and hosted records, while Report-URI scored higher on setup speed and pricing clarity
Report-URI scored well on setup, exports, and public pricing because we could add all three domains without a sales motion and inspect Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp quickly. Agari scored higher on enforcement readiness because hosted record management, sender intelligence, and professional onboarding made the unauthorized spoof sample and forwarded SPF failure easier to turn into policy decisions. Both scored 0.0 for blocklist monitoring because neither product gave us a tested blocklist (blacklist) workflow tied to DMARC operations.
Report-URI score
49.5/100
Agari Brand Protection score
59/100
Report-URI
49.5/100
DMARC enforcement
5.5
Customer support
6.0
Source resolution
6.5
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
3.0
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
5.5
Agari Brand Protection
59/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
7.0
Source resolution
8.0
Setup and onboarding
6.0
MSP workflows
5.5
Alerting and integrations
8.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
6.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
2.0
Time to enforcement
8.0
Feature set
Reporting depth vs managed enforcement
Report-URI is cleaner for self-service reporting. Agari is broader for enforcement programs.
Report-URI gave us faster access to raw DMARC evidence and clearer public plan limits, but it left more classification work with our team. Agari covered hosted authentication records, sender intelligence, and enforcement planning better, although pricing and setup were heavier. For teams comparing Suped's product, guided fixes and automated issue detection should be scored as separate buying criteria because report visibility alone did not close every finding in our test.
Report-URI
Fast Microsoft 365 filters
Manual unknown sender classification
Subdomain DKIM visible
Agari Brand Protection
Hosted SPF workflow
Spoof case escalated clearly
Mailchimp classified faster
Report-URI made Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp easy to filter once DMARC aggregate files arrived. The SPF pass with visible From mismatch and DKIM pass on a subdomain were visible in drilldowns, but the unknown sender still required us to compare IPs and headers with our support desk notes before we could assign an owner.
Agari Brand Protection grouped Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace under recognized cloud senders more quickly and gave clearer treatment for SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender. It handled the unauthorized spoof sample and the forwarded mail with SPF failure as enforcement cases, with more emphasis on hosted record changes and less emphasis on raw report inspection.
User experience
Control vs guidance
Report-URI feels quicker. Agari feels more directed.
Report-URI was easier to start because the DNS steps were concise and the three test domains were live quickly. Agari asked for more scoping up front, but it did a better job explaining why forwarded mail failed SPF and what policy change should wait.
Report-URI
Fast DNS setup
Clear domain switching
Forwarding explanation needed context
Agari Brand Protection
Heavier setup path
Unknown sender labeled sooner
Forwarding explained clearly
With Report-URI, onboarding the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain was mostly a DNS publish and verification flow. Finding the unknown sender took more work: we had to move between report views, IP details, and our support desk notes, and the forwarded mail SPF failure needed a written explanation for non-DMARC stakeholders.
Agari Brand Protection took longer to set up because the path assumed enterprise scoping and guided onboarding. Once running, it gave clearer labels for the unknown sender and made the forwarded SPF failure easier to explain as a forwarding artifact instead of a sender failure that needed immediate policy blocking.
Support
Hands-on help vs self-serve
Report-URI suits capable operators. Agari gives enterprises a clearer escalation path.
Report-URI support expectations matched a self-service product: documentation and standard support were enough for our setup, but DNS handoff stayed with our team. Agari had a clearer enterprise onboarding model and escalation path, though the heavier process slowed smaller changes.
Report-URI
Self-service docs first
Priority support starts higher
DNS handoff stayed internal
Agari Brand Protection
Professional onboarding expected
Escalation path clearer
Support response slower
For Report-URI, the DNS setup steps were clear enough that we did not need a live handoff to publish DMARC reporting records for the three domains. The support model felt appropriate for teams that already understand DNS, but our support desk sender and parked-domain spoof case still needed internal write-ups before we could hand them to nontechnical owners.
Agari Brand Protection expected a more formal onboarding motion. That helped with DNS handoff, hosted record planning, and escalation around the unauthorized spoof sample, but the response rhythm felt slower when we only needed a small clarification about the marketing subdomain and the forwarded mail SPF failure.
Suitability
Enterprise fit vs operator fit
Agari suits enterprise governance. Report-URI suits hands-on operators.
Report-URI is the better fit for lean teams that want direct control over reports and exports. Agari is the better fit when brand protection, hosted authentication, and enterprise handoff matter more than self-service speed. Teams comparing Suped's product should include MSP workflows and alert quality in the scorecard because account separation and repeatable handoff changed the weekly workload in our test.
Report-URI
Best for technical SMBs
Manual client handoff
Simple domain grouping
Agari Brand Protection
Enterprise governance fit
Clearer enforcement ownership
Less SMB friendly
Report-URI worked best for an SMB or technical security team that can own DNS, weekly review, and sender follow-up without much ceremony. Domain grouping was simple enough for our corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain, but recurring client reporting and MSP-style handoff notes needed work outside the product.
Agari Brand Protection fit an enterprise governance model better. Account separation, enforcement planning, and hosted record management were stronger for a larger security program, but the same structure felt heavy for a small operator that only needed recurring reports, simple client notes, and quick ownership decisions.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
Report-URI
For technical teams that want direct report control
After 90 days, Report-URI felt like a reporting workbench for a team that already knows what DMARC evidence means. The primary domain and marketing subdomain were easy to compare, and the parked domain spoof sample appeared quickly in the failure data.
The tradeoff was operational follow-through. Unknown sender classification, owner notes, and the forwarded SPF failure explanation lived outside the main path, so weekly review needed a technically confident owner.
Where it wins
Public self-service pricing
Quick three-domain setup
Clear aggregate report drilldowns
Useful exports for weekly review
Where it lags
No hosted SPF or MTA-STS
Unknown sender classification stayed manual
No blocklist (blacklist) monitoring
Policy movement needed operator judgment
Pricing
From $54.99 / month
Free tier
30-day trial, no free tier
Onboarding
Fast self-service DNS
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Agari Brand Protection
For enterprises that want managed enforcement
Agari Brand Protection felt like an enterprise DMARC program tool. It took more time to start because scoping, onboarding, and hosted record planning came before our domains felt settled, but the enforcement plan for the corporate domain was clearer.
The product did more with sender intelligence. Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender were easier to map to owners, though smaller teams would feel the procurement and admin overhead.
Where it wins
Hosted DMARC, SPF, and DKIM
Clearer enforcement planning
Strong sender classification
Enterprise integrations available
Where it lags
Current pricing not publicly listed
Onboarding felt heavy for SMBs
Support rhythm was slower
No tested blocklist (blacklist) workflow
Pricing
Not publicly listed
Free tier
No public free tier
Onboarding
Sales-led and services-heavy
G2 rating
4.0 / 5
Pricing
Report-URI
Agari Brand Protection
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$54.99 / month
Starter covers 1 protected domain and 100,000 monthly events; DMARC-specific report volume is not separately listed.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Current pricing is quote based; historical standalone tiers were far above small-team needs.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
$109.99 / month
Professional covers 2 protected domains and 250,000 monthly events.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Current public pages do not publish exact volume bands or limits.
Entry plan covers 2 domains and 100,000 monthly emails, with 90 days retention.
Large
10 domains, up to 1 million emails / month.
Custom
Public self-service tiers stop at 5 protected domains, so 10 domains require Enterprise scoping.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Historical standalone MSRP began at $95,750 / year for up to 10 million outbound emails/year.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Custom
Enterprise covers custom domains, custom events, retention, SLA, onboarding, and procurement needs.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Current pricing depends on organization size, domain count, volume, services, integrations, and bundled scope.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Report-URI amounts are public list prices checked May 15, 2026 and use protected domains, monthly events, and retention; the segment mapping is estimated where plan limits do not match the stated email volumes. Agari Brand Protection current pricing was not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026; historical standalone MSRP tiers are context, not current contracted pricing.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Guided sender fixes
Report-URI surfaced the unknown sender and spoof sample, but our owner notes and fix steps stayed manual; Suped turns those findings into guided source tasks and record changes.
Published pricing path
Agari Brand Protection required sales-led scoping for current pricing, while Suped publishes starter pricing for teams that need budget clarity before procurement.
MSP handoff workflow
Both products needed extra work for recurring client handoff in our test; Suped's product keeps domain grouping, owner notes, and report cadence closer to the same workflow.
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 Report-URI or 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
