Report-URI vs.
Send-Shield in 2026
Report-URI
5.0/5
Send-Shield
0.0/5
vs.
We tested Report-URI and Send-Shield for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain. Report-URI felt better for technical teams that want raw control and broader browser security telemetry, while Send-Shield was clearer for a DMARC-first buyer that wants implementation help and message-volume pricing.
Rhea Robinson
Senior Solutions Engineer
Published 5 Nov 2025
Updated 1 Jun 2026
8 min read
Summarize with
Report-URI
Security reporting platform with DMARC monitoring
Starts at
From $54.99 / month
Best fit
Technical security teams that also need CSP and browser report workflows
In one line
Report-URI gave us granular report views and useful exports, but DMARC ownership work took more manual interpretation than a DMARC-only team would expect.
Send-Shield
Managed DMARC reporting and implementation
Starts at
From £19.99 / month
Best fit
SMBs that want DMARC setup support and clear message-volume bands
In one line
Send-Shield made the DMARC journey easier to explain to a non-specialist owner, but it exposed fewer technical controls for source investigation and operational routing.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn more
The short version: choose control or guided implementation
Pick Report-URI if
Best for technical teams that already know how they want to operate DMARC
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were visible quickly, but naming the responsible internal owner still required manual notes.
SendGrid and Mailchimp drilldowns were detailed enough to confirm domain-matching DKIM and SPF behavior across the marketing subdomain.
The forwarded mail SPF failure was easy to isolate in reports, but the explanation still needed a DMARC-aware operator.
From $54.99 / month
Pick Send-Shield if
Best for SMBs that want DMARC rollout help instead of report-heavy self-service
The primary corporate domain reached a readable enforcement plan faster because the setup flow asked for approved senders up front.
The unknown sender was easier to classify with support context, although the product exposed less raw evidence than Report-URI.
The parked domain spoof sample was surfaced clearly as unauthorized activity, which made the reject case simple to explain.
From £19.99 / month
Consider Suped if
Suped fits teams that want guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership
Use guided fixes as a buying criterion when the team needs DNS-ready next steps rather than raw authentication evidence.
Prioritise automated issue detection when unknown senders, forwarded mail, and subdomain DKIM cases need quick triage.
Check published starter pricing and MSP workflows when client grouping, alerts, and handoff notes matter.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
Report-URI
Send-Shield
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report parsing, authentication result views, and drilldowns.
Detailed technical reports
DMARC-first reports
DMARC report analysis
Source detection
Ability to name sending services and separate approved mail from unknown traffic.
Manual classification often needed
Supported through setup
Source identification
Forward detection
Clarity when forwarded mail fails SPF but passes or fails DMARC through DKIM.
Visible in drilldowns
Explained during review
Forward detection
Spoof detection
Unauthorized mail identification and policy readiness signals.
Clear evidence
Clear unauthorized activity flag
Spoof detection
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerts, routing, and noise control.
Advanced alerting on higher tiers
Proactive threat monitoring
Alerting
Reporting
Recurring summaries, exports, and stakeholder-ready report output.
Exports available
Reports by tier
Reporting
API
Programmatic access for report data and operational workflows.
Business tier and above
Not publicly listed
API
Multi-tenancy
Client grouping, account separation, and role separation.
Team access from Professional
Domain caps by plan
Multi-tenancy
SPF flattening
Managed SPF simplification for domains with too many DNS lookups.
Not publicly listed
Not publicly listed
SPF flattening
Hosted DMARC
Hosted DMARC record management and guided policy changes.
Manual DNS workflow
Implementation help, not hosted record
Hosted DMARC
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF management rather than static DNS-only SPF records.
Not publicly listed
Not publicly listed
Hosted SPF
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed MTA-STS policy hosting and TLS reporting workflow.
Not publicly listed
Not publicly listed
Hosted MTA-STS
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) or sender reputation monitoring.
Not tested
Threat monitoring, no blacklist workflow tested
Blocklist and reputation checks
Automatic issue detection
Detection of misconfiguration and risky authentication changes.
Partial through alerts
Partial through monitoring
Automatic issue detection
AI copilot
AI-assisted interpretation or guided investigation.
Enterprise AI Insights
Not publicly listed
AI copilot
DNS monitoring
Monitoring DNS records for changes or failures.
Policy and report checks
DMARC, SPF, DKIM checks
DNS monitoring
Self hostable
Option to run the product on your own infrastructure.
Hosted SaaS
Hosted service
Not self hostable
Free trial/free tier
A trial or free entry option for evaluation.
30-day trial
14-day trial
Free plan
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric built around enforcement readiness, sender classification, setup, alerts, account separation, hosted record coverage, blocklist (blacklist) monitoring, pricing clarity, and time to a defensible DMARC policy. Higher is better in every row.
Report-URI scores higher for technical control, while Send-Shield scores higher for DMARC-specific rollout support
Report-URI gave us stronger raw evidence, exports, API availability on higher public tiers, and cleaner authentication drilldowns for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp. Send-Shield gave us a clearer DMARC implementation path and more human-readable support handoff, but it was weaker when we needed API detail, hosted record workflows, and operational alert routing. Neither product gave us tested hosted SPF, hosted MTA-STS, or blocklist and blacklist monitoring inside the reviewed workflow.
Report-URI score
53/100
Send-Shield score
58.5/100
Report-URI
53/100
DMARC enforcement
7.0
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
7.0
MSP workflows
5.0
Alerting and integrations
7.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
6.5
Time to enforcement
6.5
Send-Shield
58.5/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
8.0
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
6.0
Alerting and integrations
5.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
8.0
Feature set
Depth vs DMARC focus
Report-URI has deeper technical evidence. Send-Shield has the cleaner DMARC feature path.
Report-URI gave us more report-level control, especially when checking SendGrid, Mailchimp, and forwarded mail edge cases. Send-Shield was easier to use for DMARC implementation decisions, but buyers should still check whether guided fixes and automated issue detection go far enough for their operating model.
Report-URI
5/5
Detailed SendGrid drilldowns
Mailchimp domain-match evidence
Microsoft 365 source clarity
Send-Shield
0/5
DMARC-first sender review
Google Workspace setup support
Unknown sender triage
Report-URI handled Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace as identifiable approved senders once the DNS records were live, and its drilldowns made the SPF pass with domain match, DKIM pass with domain match, and visible-from mismatch cases easy to separate. SendGrid and Mailchimp had enough detail to compare organizational domain matches against the marketing subdomain, but the unknown sender needed manual classification notes before we trusted the source list.
Send-Shield felt more DMARC-specific during setup because its plan structure and workflow were built around active domains, message volume, and implementation support. It gave us a clearer path for the unauthorized spoof sample and the parked domain, but it exposed less raw investigation detail when the DKIM pass happened on a subdomain and when forwarded mail failed SPF.
User experience
Control vs guidance
Report-URI suits operators. Send-Shield suits guided rollout.
Report-URI made sense when we already knew what to inspect and which sender should own each fix. Send-Shield took more of the burden during setup, especially when explaining why a forwarded mail SPF failure was not the same risk as a spoofing attempt.
Report-URI
5/5
Fast DNS setup
Unknown sender filters
Forwarding evidence visible
Send-Shield
0/5
Guided domain intake
Clear sender questions
Forwarding easier to explain
Report-URI onboarding for the three test domains was fast once DNS was ready, but the product expected us to know what the DMARC reports meant. Finding the unknown sender took several report filters, and the forwarded mail SPF failure was technically clear but not packaged as a stakeholder-ready explanation.
Send-Shield asked better early questions about the primary corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain. The unknown sender classification felt more guided, and the forwarded mail SPF failure was easier to explain to a non-specialist because the workflow separated forwarding behavior from unauthorized spoofing.
Support
Self-serve vs implementation help
Report-URI is more self-serve. Send-Shield gives more setup help on paid tiers.
Report-URI works well when a capable technical team can own DNS, source mapping, and escalation internally. Send-Shield has the clearer support path for teams that want help moving into enforcement, although the level of support changes sharply by plan.
Report-URI
5/5
Self-serve DNS flow
Enterprise onboarding path
Priority support by tier
Send-Shield
0/5
Implementation help on Core
Meeting support available
24/7 enterprise support
With Report-URI, setup support felt tier-dependent and the DNS handoff was mostly a self-serve task in our test. Escalation made sense for enterprise onboarding, procurement, and SLA needs, but the day-to-day work of explaining SendGrid domain matching, Mailchimp DKIM, and forwarded mail still sat with us.
With Send-Shield, the support expectations were easier to read because Starter uses self setup, while higher tiers include full DMARC implementation and more direct help. The DNS handoff for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace was easier to turn into an owner task, and escalation felt better suited to SMB teams without a dedicated email authentication specialist.
Suitability
Technical team vs managed rollout
Report-URI fits security-led teams. Send-Shield fits DMARC-led SMB rollouts.
Report-URI is the better fit when DMARC reporting is one part of a broader security reporting program and the team can own recurring reports and source classification. Send-Shield fits a buyer that wants implementation help and clearer handoff, while MSPs should weigh client grouping, alert quality, and recurring reporting before choosing either product.
Report-URI
5/5
Enterprise controls fit
Exports support handoff
MSP notes manual
Send-Shield
0/5
SMB rollout fit
Domain grouping clear
Client handoff needs review
Report-URI fit our enterprise-style test better when account separation, role controls, API access, and exports mattered. It was less natural for MSP-style client handoff because recurring reporting and ownership notes had to be built around the product rather than feeling central to the workflow.
Send-Shield fit the SMB case better because domain grouping, active-domain caps, and plan-based implementation support were easier to explain. It was workable for client-style handoff on a small set of domains, but MSPs managing many clients would need to validate account separation, recurring report automation, and alert routing before committing.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
Report-URI
A strong fit for technical teams that like evidence-rich workflows
After 90 days, Report-URI felt like a precise reporting workbench. The three-domain setup was quick, and the Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp data gave us enough detail to prove which authentication path passed and which source needed cleanup.
The tradeoff was ownership work. The unknown sender, visible-from mismatch, and forwarded SPF failure were all visible, but we had to turn the evidence into an enforcement plan, DNS tasks, and stakeholder language ourselves.
Where it wins
Granular authentication drilldowns
Useful exports for evidence sharing
API and webhooks on higher tiers
Strong fit for technical operators
Where it lags
DMARC pricing specifics are not separated
Owner handoff is manual
No tested hosted SPF workflow
No tested blacklist monitoring
Pricing
From $54.99 / month
Free tier
30-day trial
Onboarding
Self-serve
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Send-Shield
A practical fit for teams that want DMARC implementation support
After 90 days, Send-Shield felt more focused on getting a DMARC program moving. The active-domain and message-volume model matched our primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain test better than a broad security event model.
The tradeoff was technical depth. The spoof sample and unknown sender were easier to discuss, but the product gave us fewer levers for API-driven review, custom routing, hosted record management, and deeper edge-case investigation.
Where it wins
Clear DMARC plan structure
Implementation help above Starter
Readable volume bands
Good SMB enforcement fit
Where it lags
No public API detail found
No permanent free plan
Less raw investigation depth
No tested hosted MTA-STS
Pricing
From £19.99 / month
Free tier
14-day trial
Onboarding
Guided by tier
G2 rating
0 / 5
Pricing
Report-URI
Send-Shield
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.
£19.99 / month
Starter covers 1 active domain and 10,000 DMARC capable 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 with team access.
£49.99 / month
Core covers up to 2 active domains and 100,000 DMARC capable messages per month.
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 10 domains needs custom scoping.
From £699 / month
Enterprise covers up to 15 active domains and starts at 5 million DMARC capable 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 used for custom domains, custom volume, SLA, onboarding, and procurement needs.
Custom
The public Enterprise plan starts at 15 active domains, so more than 20 domains needs custom scoping.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Report-URI and Send-Shield prices are public list prices checked as of May 15, 2026. Report-URI pricing is based on protected domains and monthly events, so DMARC email-volume fit is estimated where the public table does not map directly to messages. Send-Shield pricing is published in GBP per month, billed annually, and higher-volume or higher-domain cases can increase beyond the listed starting point.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn evidence into fixes
Report-URI gave us strong raw evidence, but the unknown sender and visible-from mismatch still needed manual translation into DNS tasks and owner notes. Suped is built to connect the finding to the fix.
Cover hosted record gaps
Neither reviewed workflow gave us tested hosted SPF, hosted DMARC, or hosted MTA-STS management. Suped keeps those records in the same operating workflow as DMARC reporting.
Tighten client handoff
Send-Shield was clearer for implementation support, but MSP-style recurring reports, alert routing, and client separation still needed validation. Suped's MSP workflow is designed around grouped domains and repeatable 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 Send-Shield?
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
