Report-URI vs.
Fraudmarc Community Edition in 2026
Report-URI
Fraudmarc Community Edition
vs.
We tested Report-URI and Fraudmarc Community Edition 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. We ran same-domain SPF and DKIM passes, SPF pass with visible from mismatch, DKIM pass on a subdomain, forwarded mail with SPF failure, one spoof sample, and one unknown sender. Report-URI felt like the more polished managed product for teams that want hosted reporting and alert routing, while Fraudmarc CE made the most sense for technical operators who want self-hosted control and accept AWS maintenance.
Report-URI
Hosted DMARC and security reporting
Starts at
From $54.99 / month
Best fit
Teams that want managed reporting without self-hosting.
In one line
We got faster dashboards and cleaner alert paths, but DMARC pricing and enforcement guidance were less explicit than the broader telemetry packaging.
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Open source self-hosted DMARC reporting
Starts at
$0 software license
Best fit
Technical teams comfortable running AWS infrastructure.
In one line
We liked the control over ingestion and data location, but setup and classification took more operator time.
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 based on ownership, not brand preference
Pick Report-URI if
You want managed DMARC reporting with security telemetry beside it
The three domains were live quickly, with the primary domain and marketing subdomain easier to review than the parked domain.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace grouped cleanly on same-domain SPF and DKIM passes.
Alerting and exports were useful for handoff, especially on the spoof sample and SendGrid volume spike.
From $54.99 / month
Pick Fraudmarc Community Edition if
You want open source DMARC reporting and can operate AWS
One rua address collected reports for all three domains without a domain-count paywall.
Forwarded mail with SPF failure was explainable after we traced headers and aggregate XML.
The unknown sender stayed manual until we added our own label and owner notes.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
Use Suped when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Guided fixes should turn each failing sender into an owner, DNS change, and retest path.
Automated issue detection should separate forwarded SPF failure, spoofing, and unknown sources without weekly manual review.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows should make client handoff predictable before procurement.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
Report-URI
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Turning aggregate reports into readable sender and domain patterns.
Supported in the hosted platform.
Supported through self-hosted CE.
Supported.
Source detection
Identifying sending services behind DMARC traffic.
Useful for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace; unknown senders still needed review.
Possible, but more manual labeling was needed.
Supported.
Forward detection
Separating forwarded mail from spoofing or misconfiguration.
Manual workflow in our test.
Manual workflow in our test.
Supported.
Spoof detection
Spotting unauthorized mail that fails DMARC.
Spoof sample was easy to isolate.
Visible in failure data after setup.
Supported.
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerts for changes that need attention.
Basic to advanced alerting by tier.
Unclear in CE; we treated alerts as manual.
Supported.
Reporting
Reusable summaries and exports for owners or clients.
Exports were useful for handoff.
Reporting available after self-hosted setup.
Supported.
API
Programmatic access for reporting or workflow integration.
API and webhooks on paid higher tiers.
Internal AWS API, not a packaged buyer API.
Supported.
Multi-tenancy
Client or account separation for teams managing many domains.
Team access, not clear client tenancy.
Multi-user access, not client tenancy.
Supported.
SPF flattening
Reducing SPF lookup risk through a managed record.
Not supported in our test.
Not supported in CE.
Supported.
Hosted DMARC
Managing the DMARC policy record through the product.
Reporting only in our test.
Self-hosted reporting, not hosted policy.
Supported.
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF records and updates.
Not supported.
Not supported.
Supported.
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed MTA-STS policy hosting and related reporting.
Not supported in our test.
Not supported in CE.
Supported.
Blocklists and reputation
Monitoring blocklist and blacklist signals that affect sending.
Threat intelligence exists, but not blacklist monitoring.
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring.
Blocklist and blacklist checks included.
Automatic issue detection
Automatic classification of issues that need fixes.
Unclear for DMARC in our test.
Manual workflow in CE.
Supported.
AI copilot
AI-assisted investigation or suggested next steps.
Enterprise AI Insights, not tested.
Not supported in CE.
Supported.
DNS monitoring
Watching DNS records for drift, breakage, or bad changes.
Not tested as a DMARC DNS monitor.
No packaged DNS monitoring.
Supported.
Self hostable
Running the product in infrastructure you control.
Hosted SaaS.
Self-hosted in AWS.
Hosted SaaS.
Free trial/free tier
A no-cost entry path for testing before rollout.
30-day free trial.
Free open source CE license.
Free plan available.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric using the same 90-day setup. Higher is better in every row, and unsupported capabilities score 0.0 rather than partial credit for adjacent reporting.
Report-URI scores higher for managed operations; Fraudmarc CE scores higher for self-hosted control
Report-URI moved us from raw aggregate reports to a working enforcement plan faster because setup, hosted collection, exports, and alert routing took less manual work. Fraudmarc CE handled the same rua feed across unlimited domains, but Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender needed more AWS and labeling work before the data was ready for handoff. Both scored 0.0 on hosted SPF/MTA-STS and blocklist or blacklist monitoring because those capabilities were not present in the tested products.
Report-URI score
51.5/100
Fraudmarc Community Edition score
33/100
Report-URI
51.5/100
DMARC enforcement
6.5
Customer support
6.0
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
7.5
MSP workflows
4.0
Alerting and integrations
7.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
6.0
Time to enforcement
7.0
Fraudmarc Community Edition
33/100
DMARC enforcement
4.5
Customer support
3.0
Source resolution
5.0
Setup and onboarding
3.5
MSP workflows
3.0
Alerting and integrations
2.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
4.0
Feature set
Managed depth vs operator control
Report-URI wins on managed depth. Fraudmarc CE wins on control.
Report-URI gave us more ready-made reporting, alerting, exports, and paid API/webhook paths. Fraudmarc CE gave us ownership of ingestion and storage, but routine source classification stayed more manual. When buying DMARC tooling, guided fixes or automated issue detection matter because an unknown sender should become a named owner and next DNS action, not another weekly investigation.
Report-URI
Microsoft 365 grouped cleanly
SendGrid spike easy to export
Spoof sample surfaced quickly
Fraudmarc Community Edition
One rua for all domains
AWS data location control
Unknown sender labeling manual
In Report-URI, Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were identifiable after same-domain SPF and DKIM passes, and SendGrid plus Mailchimp were easier to compare against the marketing subdomain once aggregate volume built up. The SPF pass with visible from mismatch was surfaced as a domain mismatch, and DKIM pass on the marketing subdomain needed an owner note before policy movement. The unauthorized spoof sample was quick to spot in the failure view, and the unknown sender took one review cycle before we were comfortable labeling it.
Fraudmarc CE accepted the same rua stream through our AWS setup and kept the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain under one reporting address. Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 were understandable in the raw aggregate data, while SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender took more manual naming. The forwarded mail SPF failure was explainable, but the tool did not hand us a guided exception workflow.
User experience
Control vs guidance
Report-URI is faster to use. Fraudmarc CE is clearer to own.
Report-URI got us to a usable dashboard faster, with less infrastructure work and cleaner exports. Fraudmarc CE made the system boundary obvious because we owned AWS, but that also meant setup, sender labels, and explanations took longer.
Report-URI
Three domains added quickly
Unknown sender filter was usable
Forwarding case needed notes
Fraudmarc Community Edition
AWS setup stayed explicit
One collector covered all domains
Owner explanation stayed manual
Report-URI onboarding was simplest on the primary corporate domain: the rua record was straightforward, and Microsoft 365 plus Google Workspace were legible once reports arrived. The marketing subdomain needed more filtering because SendGrid and Mailchimp shared similar campaign windows, and the parked domain was useful for spotting the spoof sample. Finding the unknown sender took drilling into source rows, but the path was shorter than in the self-hosted setup.
Fraudmarc CE felt like an operator tool during the first week. We spent the most time on AWS prerequisites, SES receipt, Route 53, and the database path before the three domains were ready. The forwarded mail SPF failure made sense after we reviewed aggregate detail and headers, but the explanation was something we had to write for a non-technical owner.
Support
Managed help vs community ownership
Report-URI gives clearer commercial support. Fraudmarc CE expects self-reliance.
Report-URI has public self-service plans and higher-tier support paths, which matters when DNS handoff or enterprise onboarding needs a named escalation route. Fraudmarc CE depends on community and internal AWS skill; that tradeoff is acceptable for teams that want control and have operators available.
Report-URI
DNS docs covered basics
Priority support on higher tiers
Enterprise path is clearer
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Community support model
AWS knowledge required
No CE onboarding package
During setup, Report-URI documentation covered the core DNS change cleanly enough for our primary domain and marketing subdomain. The public plan matrix made standard, priority, and enterprise support expectations visible, although onboarding support was not something we treated as included on lower tiers. For escalation, the managed account path looked better suited to a compliance team that needs a support handoff.
Fraudmarc CE put more support responsibility on us. DNS handoff included AWS SES, Route 53, Cognito, and CDK steps, so our handoff note needed both email authentication and cloud ownership details. Enterprise onboarding was not part of CE, and support expectations were closer to community troubleshooting than vendor-led setup.
Suitability
Enterprise fit vs operator fit
Report-URI fits managed teams. Fraudmarc CE fits technical operators.
Report-URI is a stronger fit when a security or compliance team wants hosted reporting, exports, alerts, and an enterprise support path. Fraudmarc CE is a stronger fit when infrastructure ownership, data location, and open source control matter more than speed. Buyers running multiple clients should test MSP workflows and alert quality early, because recurring reports and clean handoff notes mattered as much as raw DMARC visibility in our 90-day setup.
Report-URI
Enterprise reporting path clearer
Client grouping needs proof
Exports help recurring reports
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Operator control is strong
Tenant workflow is manual
Low software cost
Report-URI worked best for an enterprise or security-owned SMB environment where the same team owns the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and escalation process. Account separation was more about team access and RBAC than client tenant management, and recurring reporting needed exports plus internal cadence. For MSP use, we would require proof of how client grouping and handoff notes work before rolling it across accounts.
Fraudmarc CE fit the operator-led scenario better. We could group domains under one rua flow and keep data in our AWS account, but recurring client reporting and account separation were workflows we had to design around the tool. For an MSP, the low software cost is attractive, but client handoff needs internal process and AWS discipline.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
Report-URI
Best for hosted reporting with a faster operating rhythm
By the end of 90 days, Report-URI felt like a managed reporting workspace with DMARC included beside broader security telemetry. The primary domain was clean enough to review quickly, the marketing subdomain needed filtering around SendGrid and Mailchimp, and the parked domain made the spoof sample obvious because any mail source there deserved scrutiny.
The main day-to-day advantage was speed of review. We could export evidence, route alerts, and explain Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace authentication outcomes without rebuilding the platform. The main limitation was that DMARC policy movement and sender ownership still needed our own operating notes rather than a purpose-built enforcement checklist.
Where it wins
Fastest hosted setup for three domains
Clean exports for compliance handoff
Useful alerting on spoof and volume changes
Paid API and webhooks on higher tiers
Where it lags
Public pricing is not DMARC-specific
No hosted SPF or MTA-STS in test
MSP client separation needs proof
Unknown sender ownership still manual
Pricing
From $54.99 / month
Free tier
30-day trial
Onboarding
Fastest managed setup
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Best for technical teams that want to own the stack
After 90 days, Fraudmarc CE felt like a DMARC system we owned rather than a service we consumed. One rua address collected reports for the three domains, and choosing the AWS region made data location straightforward. The cost profile was attractive, but every setup decision created an internal owner.
The reporting became useful once the pipeline was stable, but classification required more attention. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easy enough to recognize, SendGrid and Mailchimp needed campaign context, and the unknown sender stayed unresolved until we documented it ourselves. The forwarded SPF failure was explainable, but not packaged for a business owner.
Where it wins
Free open source license
Self-hosted AWS control
One rua across domains
No CE domain cap found
Where it lags
Setup depends on AWS skill
Manual sender classification
Community support expectations
No G2 review base
Pricing
$0 software license
Free tier
Open source CE
Onboarding
AWS-led setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
Pricing
Report-URI
Fraudmarc Community Edition
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$54.99 / month
Starter covers 1 protected domain, 100,000 monthly events, and 15-day retention; the public table is not DMARC-only.
$0 software license
CE has no per-domain fee; AWS costs were estimated under $5 / month before usage changes.
$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, 250,000 monthly events, and 30-day retention.
$0 software license
CE has no published domain cap; AWS usage and retention remain the main cost variables.
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
Public self-service plans top out at 5 protected domains, so 10 domains requires a custom plan.
$0 software license
CE does not publish vendor volume caps; AWS infrastructure cost rises with usage and retention.
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
Enterprise covers custom domains, events, retention, SLA, onboarding, and procurement terms.
$0 software license
CE does not publish vendor domain or volume caps; enterprise work is internal AWS operations.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Report-URI figures are public monthly list prices for self-service tiers checked as of May 15, 2026; 10-domain and enterprise Report-URI pricing is not publicly listed. Fraudmarc CE uses a free open source software license, with AWS infrastructure costs estimated by Fraudmarc under $5 / month before usage, retention, and free-tier eligibility changes.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Guided source ownership
Report-URI surfaced the unknown sender faster than Fraudmarc CE, but both still required manual owner notes in our test. Suped turns source identification into an owner, issue type, and suggested fix path.
Hosted record coverage
Both reviewed products scored 0.0 for hosted SPF, hosted MTA-STS, and managed DNS policy workflows in our rubric. Suped includes hosted SPF, hosted DMARC, and hosted MTA-STS so the same workflow can detect and fix record problems.
Operational handoff for teams
Fraudmarc CE left MSP-style client reporting and AWS ownership to us, while Report-URI needed proof around client grouping before rollout. Suped's MSP workflows focus on account separation, recurring reporting, and alert routing for handoff.
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 Fraudmarc Community Edition?
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
