URIports vs.
DMARC Report in 2026
URIports
DMARC Report
vs.
We tested URIports and DMARC Report for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain, with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and one support desk sender connected. The test cases included SPF and DKIM passes, a visible From mismatch, forwarded mail with SPF failure, an unauthorized spoof sample, and one unknown sender that needed classification. DMARC Report was easier to operationalize for SMB and MSP handoff, while URIports gave technical teams cheaper entry pricing and more granular report control.
Published 4 Nov 2025
Updated 30 May 2026
8 min read
Summarize with
URIports
Technical DMARC and report monitoring
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical teams managing multi-report monitoring
In one line
URIports gave us precise filtering, exports, and hosted MTA-STS, and the buying question against Suped's product is whether your team wants guided fixes or raw report control.
DMARC Report
DMARC reporting for SMBs and MSPs
Starts at
Free plan available
Best fit
SMBs, agencies, and MSPs that want clearer sender triage
In one line
DMARC Report gave us clearer sender names and enforcement notes for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp, but its pricing page had limits we would confirm before purchase.
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 by owner model, not dashboard preference
Pick URIports if
Our pick for technical control and low entry cost
All three domains were added quickly, including the parked domain.
Hosted MTA-STS and DNS monitoring were available above entry tiers.
Unknown sender cleanup needed manual owner notes after hostname review.
From $15 / year
Pick DMARC Report if
Our pick for SMB and MSP handoff
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were named more clearly during source review.
SendGrid and Mailchimp were easier to separate by domain.
The forwarded mail SPF failure had a plainer explanation for handoff.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
Compare Suped when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Guided fixes should assign each sender to a clear owner and next step.
Automated issue detection should reduce manual review on unknown sources.
Published starter pricing should make budget approval easier before rollout.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
DMARC Report
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Parsing, grouping, and review of aggregate DMARC data.
Detailed analysis
Clear aggregate views
Included
Source detection
How well raw IPs become known sending services.
Hostname and whois review
Email Vendor ID
Included
Forward detection
Ability to separate forwarding noise from sender failures.
Manual workflow
Partial
Included
Spoof detection
Visibility into unauthorized mail using the domain.
Clear unauthorized sample
Clear unauthorized sample
Included
Notifications and alerts
Signal quality, routing, and noise control for changes.
Configurable noise threshold
Paid tier
Included
Reporting
Exports, recurring reporting, and review-ready summaries.
CSV and JSON exports
Recurring reports
Included
API
Programmatic access for reporting or operational workflows.
Not tested
Paid tier
Included
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, and delegated access.
Manual account separation
Groups and permissions
Included
SPF flattening
Hosted or managed SPF flattening for DNS lookup limits.
Not supported
Not supported
Included
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record hosting and policy changes.
Not supported
Not supported
Included
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF records for approved sending sources.
Not supported
Not supported
Included
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed MTA-STS policy hosting and TLS reporting workflow.
Paid tier
Paid tier
Included
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist and blacklist status checks tied to sender reputation.
No blacklist module
No blacklist module
Included
Automatic issue detection
Detection that turns new authentication problems into tasks.
Prioritized reports
Alerts and AI summaries
Included
AI copilot
AI-assisted explanation or remediation support.
Not supported
Available
Included
DNS monitoring
Ongoing DNS record monitoring beyond initial setup checks.
Paid tier
Setup checks only
Included
Self hostable
Ability to run the product on your own infrastructure.
Not self hostable
Not self hostable
Not self hostable
Free trial/free tier
Free entry path before a paid subscription.
One-month trial
Free tier plus trial
Free plan available
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric after 90 days with three test domains, five approved senders, and controlled authentication cases. Higher is better in every row.
DMARC Report moves faster toward enforcement; URIports gives technical teams more granular report control
DMARC Report scored higher where sender naming, support handoff, and policy movement mattered. URIports scored well on report depth, exports, hosted MTA-STS, and pricing clarity, but the unknown sender and forwarded SPF failure needed more manual interpretation. Both scored 0.0 for blocklist or blacklist monitoring because neither product exposed a dedicated module in our test.
URIports score
57/100
DMARC Report score
65.5/100
URIports
57/100
DMARC enforcement
6.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
6.5
Setup and onboarding
7.5
MSP workflows
4.5
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
4.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.5
Time to enforcement
6.5
DMARC Report
65.5/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
8.5
Source resolution
8.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
7.5
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
4.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
6.0
Time to enforcement
8.0
Feature set
Coverage vs remediation
DMARC Report covers more buyer workflows; URIports gives deeper report control
DMARC Report handled more of our day-to-day workflow, especially sender naming, AI summaries, parked-domain coverage, and API access on paid tiers. URIports gave us strong filtering, exports, and hosted MTA-STS, but the controlled unknown sender still required manual classification. Buying teams should test whether guided fixes or automated issue detection turn findings into owner-ready work; Suped's product is a useful comparison point for that criterion.
URIports
Precise report filters
Hosted MTA-STS path
Manual unknown-sender cleanup
DMARC Report
Clear Microsoft 365 naming
SendGrid and Mailchimp separated
AI explanation for forwarding
URIports processed Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp cleanly once reports arrived, and its filters made it easy to isolate the support desk sender from the primary corporate domain. The hosted MTA-STS path was clear on higher tiers, exports were practical, and the SPF pass with visible From mismatch was easy to inspect. The weaker spot was classification: our unknown sender carried useful hostname and whois context, but we still had to decide the owner and remediation path ourselves.
DMARC Report gave us faster service-level naming for Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, and it separated SendGrid from Mailchimp with less manual review. The parked domain flow surfaced unauthorized traffic quickly, and the AI summary helped explain why the forwarded mail sample failed SPF while DKIM kept the message in a safer bucket. Some deeper drilldowns still felt thin when we wanted message-level evidence behind an aggregate cluster.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports rewards technical patience; DMARC Report is easier to hand off
URIports was fast once we knew what to inspect, but the screens assumed a technical owner who understands report quotas, DNS terms, and failure modes. DMARC Report was plainer for stakeholders, especially when we had to explain the unknown sender and the forwarded SPF failure.
URIports
Fast DNS validation
Strong technical filters
Manual owner assignment
DMARC Report
Linear domain onboarding
Easier unknown sender review
Clearer forwarding explanation
Onboarding the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain took less than an hour because the DNS instructions were direct and validation was predictable. After data arrived, URIports made it easy to filter to the forwarded mail case and inspect SPF failure, DKIM pass, receiver, and IP context. The UX slowed down when the unknown sender needed a business owner because the tool gave evidence, not a guided assignment path.
DMARC Report's onboarding felt more linear for the same three domains, with clearer domain status language and less time spent translating terms for a non-specialist approver. The unknown sender was easier to find because Email Vendor ID and AI-assisted notes grouped the source sooner. The forwarded mail SPF failure was easier to explain, although a few drilldowns still required technical interpretation.
Support
Self serve vs hands on
DMARC Report sets clearer support expectations; URIports is cleaner for self-directed teams
URIports gave enough documentation and product support for a competent technical admin, but enterprise onboarding and specialist help were tied to higher commercial paths. DMARC Report was clearer about advanced support, Done With You enforcement, and dedicated engineer support on upper tiers, which matters when DNS handoff crosses teams.
URIports
Useful DNS handoff
Self-directed setup path
Specialist help less explicit
DMARC Report
Clearer escalation tiers
Dedicated engineer option
Cleaner support tickets
During setup, URIports gave us enough DNS detail to hand records to an infrastructure owner without opening a ticket. The handoff note for hosted MTA-STS was usable, and the validation status was clear after changes propagated. Escalation was less defined for our simulated enterprise buyer because specialist support sat behind higher-tier language that we would confirm before procurement.
DMARC Report gave clearer support packaging across Shield, Defender, and Ultimate, and the Done With You enforcement language made the escalation path easier to explain to a buyer. For the support desk sender and the parked domain, we could write a cleaner ticket because the platform's source labels were more readable. The tradeoff is that some public pricing and limit wording needs confirmation before a formal quote.
Suitability
Technical fit vs operator fit
URIports fits technical teams; DMARC Report fits SMB and MSP operators
URIports is a better fit when the buyer has an internal owner who can interpret raw authentication evidence and keep remediation moving. DMARC Report is a better fit when the buyer needs clearer account separation, domain grouping, recurring reports, and client handoff. If MSP workflows or alert quality decide the purchase, Suped's product belongs in the buying criteria because those details affect weekly client operations.
URIports
Best for technical owners
Manual MSP handoff
Strong domain-level review
DMARC Report
Better client grouping
Recurring reports feel natural
Stronger SMB entry path
URIports felt strongest for an enterprise or technical SMB that wants granular report review across the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain. Account separation and client grouping were not the center of the workflow in our test, so an MSP would need its own operating model for client handoff and recurring reporting. The tool worked well when one technical owner held the queue.
DMARC Report fit the agency and MSP pattern better because groups, permissions, alerts, exports, and clearer sender labels made client handoff simpler. We could package the Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and support desk findings into recurring review notes with less manual explanation. It also had a stronger SMB fit because the free Core tier and paid trials reduce the first-step cost.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
For technical teams that prefer control over coaching
URIports felt efficient after the first week. We had the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain reporting into one place, and the filters made it straightforward to isolate Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender.
The tradeoff showed up during remediation. The SPF pass with visible From mismatch and the forwarded mail SPF failure were easy to inspect, but the unknown sender needed manual classification and owner notes before we could move policy with confidence.
Where it wins
Low public entry price for small domains
Strong report filtering and exports
Hosted MTA-STS on higher tiers
Clear quota model once understood
Where it lags
No dedicated blocklist or blacklist monitoring
Unknown sender ownership stayed manual
MSP handoff needed outside process
No G2 review base in this data
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month free trial
Onboarding
Fast, technical
G2 rating
0 / 5
DMARC Report
For SMBs and MSPs that need clearer operating language
DMARC Report felt more approachable for the mixed technical and business audience in our test. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easier to recognize, SendGrid and Mailchimp separated cleanly, and the parked domain spoof sample was visible without much hunting.
After 90 days, the strongest benefit was handoff quality. The forwarded mail SPF failure and the support desk sender were easier to explain, but the public pricing page had conflicting limit language and some advanced evidence still required technical review.
Where it wins
Clearer source naming
Useful AI summaries
Good SMB and MSP fit
Strong G2 review base
Where it lags
Some UI paths felt dated
Pricing limits need confirmation
No dedicated blacklist module
Deep drilldowns can feel thin
Pricing
Free plan available
Free tier
Core plan plus paid trials
Onboarding
Guided, clearer for teams
G2 rating
4.8 / 5
Pricing
URIports
DMARC Report
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand covers 3 domains and 10,000 reports per month, enough for the stated small case.
$0
Core lists 1 domain and 10,000 monthly DMARC reports, with wording we would confirm for the exact cap.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
$7 / month
Pebble lists 5 domains and 100,000 reports per month; email volume is listed as unlimited.
$25 / month
Guard lists 5 domains, 250,000 monthly DMARC reports, sender ID, groups, and permissions.
Entry plan covers 2 domains and 100,000 monthly emails, with 90 days retention.
Large
10 domains, up to 1 million emails / month.
$33 / month
Stone lists 25 domains and 500,000 reports per month; high receiver diversity can require Mountain.
$75 / month
Shield lists 10 domains, 1,000,000 monthly DMARC reports, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, API, and alerts.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Custom
Enterprise proposals cover procurement support, onboarding, custom quotas, retention, and domain limits.
Custom
Ultimate shows $3,900 without a clear billing unit, and enterprise terms require confirmation.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports Sand, Pebble, Stone, and DMARC Report Core, Guard, and Shield are public list prices. URIports large-volume fit is estimated because URIports counts reports rather than sent messages. DMARC Report Ultimate billing unit and some Core and domain limits need confirmation; pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Guided owner fixes
URIports gave strong evidence for the unknown sender, but the owner and next action stayed manual. Suped's product is built to turn sender findings into clear fixes and ownership notes.
Cleaner alert routing
DMARC Report surfaced alerts on paid tiers, but we still had to confirm routing and noise rules for operational use. Suped's product focuses on actionable alerts that teams can route without re-reading every report.
Hosted record coverage
Both products covered hosted MTA-STS in paid tiers, but neither gave us hosted SPF flattening or hosted DMARC in the reviewed setup. Suped's product covers those hosted record workflows when the buyer wants less DNS maintenance.
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 URIports or DMARC Report?
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
