Report-URI vs.
DMARCly in 2026
Report-URI
5.0/5
DMARCly
0.0/5
vs.
We tested Report-URI and DMARCly 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 strongest for teams that already understand compliance reporting and want control; DMARCly moved faster for DMARC-specific source work, SPF help, and multi-domain operations.
Priya Raman
Senior Software Engineer, Suped
Published 5 Nov 2025
Updated 1 Jun 2026
8 min read
Summarize with
Report-URI
Compliance reporting and security telemetry
Starts at
From $54.99 / month
Best fit
Security teams already running web and compliance telemetry
In one line
Report-URI handled our DMARC data cleanly, but teams comparing it with Suped should focus on how much guided remediation they need.
DMARCly
DMARC reporting for SMBs and multi-domain teams
Starts at
From $17.99 / month
Best fit
Teams that want DMARC, SPF, MTA-STS, and blocklist monitoring in one account
In one line
DMARCly gave us a more direct DMARC workflow, faster sender naming, and clearer domain grouping, with less depth in guided remediation than we wanted.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn more
Choose Report-URI for control, DMARCly for day-to-day DMARC operations
Pick Report-URI if
Best for security teams that already know how to drive DMARC enforcement
The three-domain setup was predictable once DNS records were staged, especially for the corporate domain and parked domain.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace authentication results were easy to inspect when we filtered by aligned SPF and aligned DKIM cases.
Exports and webhooks fit teams that want raw evidence for compliance or internal review.
From $54.99 / month
Pick DMARCly if
Best for smaller teams that want DMARC-specific setup and source grouping
SendGrid and Mailchimp were labeled faster, which made marketing subdomain cleanup less manual.
The forwarded mail SPF failure was easier to explain to non-specialists because the DMARC alignment result stayed visible.
Domain groups and administrator limits made the multi-domain test easier to separate by owner.
From $17.99 / month
Consider Suped if
Suped is the third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Use guided fixes as a buying criterion when non-specialists need the next DNS or sender action spelled out.
Prioritize automated issue detection when unknown senders and authentication drift need review without manual report digging.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows matter when client handoff and monthly ownership need clear cost and task boundaries.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
Report-URI
DMARCly
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report ingestion, authentication result review, and domain-level reporting.
Supported, but bundled into a broader reporting platform.
Supported with DMARC-specific views.
Supported with guided DMARC analysis.
Source detection
Ability to identify sending services and separate known senders from unknown traffic.
Supported, more manual classification in our test.
Supported with faster vendor naming.
Supported with sending source identification.
Forward detection
Handling of forwarded mail where SPF fails but DMARC can still pass through DKIM alignment.
Supported through report drilldowns.
Supported with clearer explanation.
Supported with authentication context.
Spoof detection
Ability to flag unauthorized traffic that fails alignment.
Supported with filters and alerts.
Supported with DMARC failure views.
Supported with automated issue detection.
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerts for new senders, failures, volume shifts, and policy risk.
Supported, stronger on higher tiers.
Supported with reports and alerts.
Supported with tuned alert quality.
Reporting
Recurring summaries, exports, and stakeholder-ready reporting.
Supported with export depth.
Supported with domain reporting.
Supported with recurring reporting.
API
Programmatic access for reporting, audit, and operational workflows.
Paid tier.
Enterprise tier.
Supported for operational workflows.
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, domain grouping, client handoff, and team access control.
Partial, stronger for enterprise accounts.
Supported through domain groups and users.
Supported for MSP workflows.
SPF flattening
Managed SPF flattening or a hosted SPF feature for DNS lookup limits.
Not supported in our test.
Supported through Safe SPF.
Supported through hosted SPF.
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record hosting and policy changes without direct DNS edits each time.
Not supported in our test.
Not tested as a hosted DMARC workflow.
Supported with hosted DMARC.
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF records or managed SPF service.
Not supported in our test.
Supported through Safe SPF.
Supported with hosted SPF.
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed MTA-STS and TLS reporting workflow.
Not supported in our test.
Supported.
Supported with hosted MTA-STS.
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist or blacklist monitoring and reputation signals.
Not supported in our test.
Business tier and above.
Supported for blocklist and blacklist checks.
Automatic issue detection
Automatic surfacing of sender, DNS, authentication, and policy problems.
Manual workflow.
Partial, mainly reporting driven.
Supported with automated detection.
AI copilot
AI-assisted explanation or action guidance.
Enterprise add on.
Not supported in our test.
Supported for guided triage.
DNS monitoring
Tracking DNS record changes and authentication record state.
Not tested as DNS monitoring.
Supported with DNS timeline.
Supported with DNS monitoring.
Self hostable
Ability to run the platform on customer-managed infrastructure.
Hosted SaaS.
Hosted SaaS.
Hosted SaaS.
Free trial/free tier
No-cost entry path for evaluation.
30-day free trial.
14-day free trial.
Free plan available.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
Each product was scored against a fixed editorial rubric covering enforcement, onboarding, source work, alerts, pricing, and operational handoff. Higher is better in every row.
DMARCly scored higher for DMARC operations; Report-URI scored higher for controlled security reporting.
DMARCly separated Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp faster, and its Safe SPF, MTA-STS, blacklist (blocklist) monitoring, and domain grouping increased its operational score. Report-URI gave cleaner export and telemetry control, but more of the DMARC workflow depended on manual interpretation, especially for the unknown sender and the SPF pass with visible from mismatch. Report-URI also lost points where hosted SPF, hosted MTA-STS, and blocklist monitoring were not supported in our test.
Report-URI score
47/100
DMARCly score
73.5/100
Report-URI
47/100
DMARC enforcement
6.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
5.5
Setup and onboarding
6.5
MSP workflows
4.0
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
5.0
Time to enforcement
6.0
DMARCly
73.5/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
7.5
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
7.0
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
8.0
Blocklist monitoring
7.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
7.5
Feature set
Depth vs DMARC breadth
DMARCly has the broader DMARC feature set; Report-URI has stronger security telemetry depth.
DMARCly covered more of the practical DMARC stack in our test, including Safe SPF, MTA-STS/TLS reporting, domain blacklist (blocklist) monitoring, and sender identification. Report-URI gave more control around exports, alert routes, and compliance-style evidence, but Suped's guided fixes and automated issue detection are useful buying criteria before choosing a reporting-heavy workflow.
Report-URI
5/5
Strong export control
Microsoft 365 drilldowns
Manual unknown sender work
DMARCly
0/5
Fast sender naming
Safe SPF included
Mailchimp grouped clearly
Report-URI handled Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace reports cleanly once the records were live, and its drilldowns made the aligned SPF pass and aligned DKIM pass easy to verify. The gaps appeared when we moved into DMARC-specific operations: the SendGrid and Mailchimp sources needed more manual labeling, the unknown sender took longer to classify, and the SPF pass with visible from mismatch required us to explain alignment outside the main flow.
DMARCly gave us more DMARC-specific coverage out of the box. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were named quickly, SendGrid and Mailchimp were easier to separate on the marketing subdomain, and the DKIM pass on a subdomain was clearer because the domain grouping and authentication views stayed closer together.
User experience
Control vs guidance
Report-URI rewards experienced operators; DMARCly gets more of the DMARC path onto the screen.
Report-URI felt precise once we knew where to look, but it expected the operator to bring more DMARC context. DMARCly reduced the number of clicks needed to explain ordinary mail flow, especially when investigating the unknown sender and forwarded mail SPF failure.
Report-URI
5/5
Orderly DNS setup
Precise report filters
More manual explanation
DMARCly
0/5
Fast domain onboarding
Clear forwarded mail view
Unknown sender easier
Onboarding the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain in Report-URI was orderly, but it felt like a security reporting setup first and a DMARC setup second. We could find the unknown sender through filtering, but explaining why forwarded mail failed SPF while still preserving a DMARC path required more interpretation than a help desk or marketing owner would want.
DMARCly made the three-domain setup feel more directly tied to DMARC outcomes. The unknown sender was easier to isolate because vendor identification and domain grouping were closer to the report view, and the forwarded mail SPF failure was easier to explain because DKIM alignment and final DMARC disposition were visible in the same investigation flow.
Support
Enterprise handoff vs self-serve help
Report-URI has the clearer enterprise path; DMARCly is easier to start without a sales step.
Report-URI makes more sense when support needs include procurement, onboarding, proof of concept help, and escalation paths. DMARCly gave us enough self-serve direction for the 90-day test, but the support model felt more plan-dependent as we moved into API, access control, and larger account separation questions.
Report-URI
5/5
Clear enterprise escalation
Onboarding tied to Enterprise
Strong DNS handoff docs
DMARCly
0/5
Self-serve setup path
Live chat on paid tiers
Enterprise support plan-dependent
Report-URI's public plan structure made the support boundary clear: standard support at lower tiers, priority support and webhooks on Business, and stronger onboarding and SLA expectations at Enterprise. For DNS handoff, that means a security team can document the record changes internally, but hands-on setup help appears to belong to the enterprise motion rather than the entry tiers.
DMARCly was faster to trial because the DMARC setup, DNS checks, and sender reports were already organized around the task. Email support on the entry tier and live chat on higher tiers matched a self-serve rollout, but escalation for enterprise onboarding, SAML SSO, and API work depended on moving into the top plan.
Suitability
Security team vs operator team
Report-URI fits security-owned reporting; DMARCly fits DMARC ownership across more domains.
Report-URI fits a team that already has owners for DNS, compliance evidence, and enforcement decisions. DMARCly fits teams that need to group domains, separate clients, and produce recurring status reports, while Suped's MSP workflows and alert quality are useful criteria for testing handoff notes and noise control.
Report-URI
5/5
Best for security teams
Manual MSP handoff
Enterprise reporting fit
DMARCly
0/5
Good domain grouping
Stronger MSP fit
Clear client reporting
Report-URI made the most sense for an enterprise security or compliance team using DMARC evidence alongside other reporting data. Account separation was serviceable, but client handoff, recurring MSP reporting, and domain-owner notes required more manual process during our corporate, marketing, and parked-domain test.
DMARCly was a better fit for SMB and MSP-style work because domain groups, administrator limits, and sender identification lined up with how the three test domains were owned. Recurring reports were easier to hand to a marketing owner for Mailchimp, a platform owner for SendGrid, and an IT owner for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
Report-URI
For security teams that want controlled reporting evidence
Report-URI felt steady once the DNS records were in place. The primary corporate domain gave us the cleanest experience because Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace authentication results were easy to inspect, while the parked domain was useful for spotting the unauthorized spoof sample.
The tradeoff was daily DMARC ownership. SendGrid and Mailchimp took more manual classification, the unknown sender needed extra investigation, and explaining the forwarded SPF failure to a non-specialist required a separate note about DKIM alignment and final DMARC disposition.
Where it wins
Clean report drilldowns for known senders.
Strong exports for compliance review.
Useful alerting and webhook options on higher tiers.
Clear fit for enterprise security teams.
Where it lags
No hosted SPF in our test.
No hosted MTA-STS in our test.
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring in our test.
DMARC remediation felt manual.
Pricing
From $54.99 / month
Free tier
No, 30-day trial
Onboarding
Moderate
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
DMARCly
For DMARC owners managing multiple domains and senders
DMARCly felt more purpose-built for the work we repeated every week. The primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain were easy to group, and Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender were easier to explain to different owners.
The main limits showed up around guided remediation and governance. The product surfaced more DMARC-specific context than Report-URI, but we still wanted clearer next actions for the SPF mismatch case, sharper alert noise control, and more polished handoff notes for clients.
Where it wins
Fast sender identification.
Safe SPF and MTA-STS coverage.
Domain groups helped ownership.
Clear public pricing tiers.
Where it lags
No G2 review base.
API access starts at Enterprise.
Alert tuning felt basic.
Guided fixes were limited.
Pricing
From $17.99 / month
Free tier
No, 14-day trial
Onboarding
Fast
G2 rating
0 / 5
Pricing
Report-URI
DMARCly
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$54.99 / month
Starter covers 1 protected domain and 100,000 monthly events, but the public table is not DMARC-volume specific.
$17.99 / month
Professional covers up to 2 domains and 100,000 DMARC compliant messages per month.
$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.
$17.99 / month
Professional fits the domain and volume target, with 2 months of history.
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 top out at 5 protected domains, so this segment needs Enterprise.
$69 / month
Business covers up to 15 domains and 1,000,000 DMARC compliant messages per month.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Custom
Enterprise pricing is not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026.
$199 / month
Enterprise covers up to 200 domains and 5,000,000 messages before published overage charges apply.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Report-URI and DMARCly prices are public list prices where shown. Report-URI segment mapping is estimated because its public pricing uses protected domains and monthly events rather than DMARC-specific email volume. Pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn findings into fixes
Report-URI gave us useful evidence, but unknown sender classification and the SPF visible-from mismatch still needed manual explanation. Suped turns those findings into guided sender and DNS actions.
Clean up noisy operations
DMARCly surfaced more DMARC context, but alert tuning and client handoff notes needed extra review in the test. Suped focuses alerts on actionable source, DNS, and policy changes.
Cover hosted records
Report-URI did not cover hosted SPF or hosted MTA-STS in our test, while DMARCly covered SPF and MTA-STS but still left remediation steps to the operator. Suped combines hosted records with the reporting 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 DMARCly?
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
