URIports vs.
DMARC-SRG in 2026
URIports
DMARC-SRG
vs.
We tested URIports and DMARC-SRG for 90 days across three domains, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and a support desk sender. URIports was the stronger managed product for teams that want analysis, alerts, exports, and hosted MTA-STS in one account. DMARC-SRG made sense only when $0 self-hosted software and manual report review were more important than guided remediation.
Published 4 Nov 2025
Updated 30 May 2026
8 min read
Summarize with
URIports
Managed DMARC and reporting operations
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical SMBs and teams with several monitored domains
In one line
URIports gave us the cleaner managed view of Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp, but Suped is the third benchmark when guided fixes and published starter pricing matter.
DMARC-SRG
Self-hosted DMARC report viewer
Starts at
$0 self-hosted
Best fit
Operators who want open-source parsing and control their own server
In one line
DMARC-SRG parsed aggregate reports reliably, but classification, alert routing, and enforcement planning stayed manual in our test.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn about Suped
Choose URIports for managed reporting, DMARC-SRG for self-hosted control
Pick URIports if
Best for teams that want a hosted DMARC console with clear report drilldowns
Onboarded the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain without server setup.
Separated Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp into readable sender views.
Explained the forwarded mail SPF failure through authentication detail instead of raw XML.
From $15 / year
Pick DMARC-SRG if
Best for operators who accept manual work to keep the software free and self-hosted
Parsed uploaded and mailbox-ingested aggregate reports once PHP, database, and cron were configured.
Showed the unauthorized spoof sample in failed authentication rows, but without guided owner steps.
Kept data local, which helped the parked domain test but added backup and maintenance work.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
Suped as the third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Use guided fixes when a sender passes SPF but fails visible From matching.
Use automated issue detection and clearer alerts when unknown senders need fast ownership decisions.
Use MSP workflows and published starter pricing when recurring reports and handoff notes matter.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
DMARC-SRG
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report parsing, filtering, and authentication detail.
Managed analysis with drilldowns
Parser and report viewer
Managed analysis with guided context
Source detection
Turns traffic into recognizable sending sources and ownership work.
Clearer sender grouping
Raw IP and org detail only
Source identification supported
Forward detection
Helps explain SPF failure caused by legitimate forwarding.
Visible in authentication drilldowns
Manual interpretation required
Forwarding context supported
Spoof detection
Highlights unauthorized traffic and failed authentication patterns.
Spoof sample was easy to isolate
Visible in failure filters
Spoof detection supported
Notifications and alerts
Operational routing when authentication changes or risk appears.
Configurable alerting and noise control
Summary reports only
Alerts supported
Reporting
Exports, recurring review, and stakeholder-ready output.
CSV and JSON export
Summary report generation
Reporting supported
API
Programmatic access or automated report intake.
Reporting API supported
No dedicated API found
API supported
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, and delegation.
Account domains, not client workspaces
Single self-hosted instance model
Multi-tenancy supported
SPF flattening
Hosted flattening or managed SPF record reduction.
Validation tools, no hosted flattening
Not supported
SPF flattening supported
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC policy record hosting.
Reporting only
Not supported
Hosted DMARC supported
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF record hosting and updates.
Not supported
Not supported
Hosted SPF supported
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS policy and TLS reporting workflow.
Paid tier
Not supported
Hosted MTA-STS supported
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist and blacklist monitoring for sender reputation problems.
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring
Blocklist monitoring supported
Automatic issue detection
Finds authentication problems without manual report review.
Prioritized reporting and validation
Manual workflow
Automatic issue detection supported
AI copilot
Assisted investigation and fix explanation.
Not supported
Not supported
AI copilot supported
DNS monitoring
Tracks DNS record changes and configuration drift.
Paid tier
Not supported
DNS monitoring supported
Self hostable
Runs on infrastructure controlled by the customer.
Hosted SaaS
Self-hosted PHP app
Hosted SaaS
Free trial/free tier
Entry path before paid commitment.
One-month free trial
Free self-hosted software
Free plan and trial
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored each product against a fixed editorial rubric covering enforcement work, setup, support, source resolution, MSP fit, alerts, hosted records, blocklist and blacklist monitoring, pricing clarity, and time to a defensible policy plan. Higher is better in every row.
URIports scored higher for managed operations; DMARC-SRG scored for control and cost.
URIports earned stronger scores because it handled the three test domains in a hosted workflow, grouped major senders more clearly, and gave us usable drilldowns for the forwarded SPF failure and spoof sample. DMARC-SRG scored well on cost and self-hosted control, but it left sender ownership, alert triage, and policy movement to the operator. Neither product earned blocklist monitoring points because neither showed built-in blocklist or blacklist monitoring in our test.
URIports score
62.5/100
DMARC-SRG score
26.5/100
URIports
62.5/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
7.5
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
4.5
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
5.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.5
Time to enforcement
7.5
DMARC-SRG
26.5/100
DMARC enforcement
3.5
Customer support
2.0
Source resolution
3.5
Setup and onboarding
4.0
MSP workflows
2.0
Alerting and integrations
1.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
6.5
Time to enforcement
3.5
Feature set
Managed breadth vs parser control
URIports has the broader managed set; DMARC-SRG keeps the core parser lean.
URIports covered more of the daily DMARC workflow, including hosted intake, report enrichment, exports, DNS monitoring on paid tiers, and hosted MTA-STS. DMARC-SRG stayed focused on parsing and viewing aggregate reports. For teams comparing a third option, Suped's guided fixes and automated issue detection are the criteria to test against this gap.
URIports
Microsoft 365 grouped cleanly
SendGrid spoof stood out
Forwarded SPF failure explained
DMARC-SRG
Raw reports stayed readable
Unknown sender needed manual tagging
Mailchimp subdomain edge case visible
URIports handled Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace as expected, and it made SendGrid and Mailchimp easier to separate once we filtered by source and domain. The unknown sender still needed a human decision, but the IP, hostname, and abuse contact context reduced the guesswork. The forwarded mail case with SPF failure and DKIM pass was clear enough for a security reviewer to explain without opening raw XML.
DMARC-SRG parsed the same reports into usable tables and kept the DKIM and SPF evidence visible for each row. It showed the Mailchimp subdomain DKIM pass and the spoof sample, but it did not turn those rows into sender names, owners, or remediation steps. The product worked best when we already knew how to classify Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp traffic.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports is easier to run week to week; DMARC-SRG rewards technical patience.
URIports put setup, report review, and sender investigation inside one hosted workflow. DMARC-SRG gave us more direct control over data and hosting, but every operational task needed more judgment and more maintenance.
URIports
Three domains in one pass
Unknown sender surfaced quickly
Forwarding explanation was clear
DMARC-SRG
Setup demanded server comfort
Unknown sender stayed manual
Forwarding needed report literacy
URIports was fast to start: we added the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain, then reviewed incoming reports without touching a database or mail parser. The unknown sender was easier to find because the interface kept the domain, source, and authentication result close together. The forwarded mail SPF failure was not hidden, and the DKIM pass made the explanation easier to trust.
DMARC-SRG felt like a utility built for people comfortable with PHP, MariaDB or MySQL, IMAP ingestion, cron, and backups. Once configured, the tables were plain and readable, but finding the unknown sender required manual filtering and outside knowledge of the sending stack. Explaining the forwarded mail SPF failure required more DMARC literacy because the app did not provide much interpretation.
Support
Vendor help vs self support
URIports has a clearer support path; DMARC-SRG depends on internal ownership.
URIports gave us normal managed-product expectations: product support, documented billing paths, and enterprise options for teams that need onboarding or procurement help. DMARC-SRG has no published commercial support tier, so setup quality depends on the operator who owns the server.
URIports
DNS handoff notes were usable
Enterprise path was documented
Escalation still felt ticketed
DMARC-SRG
Community support only
No managed DNS handoff
Enterprise onboarding absent
With URIports, the DNS handoff was practical because the records, validation state, and report intake steps lived in the product experience. We still had to decide who owned the parked domain policy move, but the escalation path was clear enough for a business buyer. Enterprise onboarding was documented through custom report quotas, invoice billing, procurement support, and specialist support options.
With DMARC-SRG, support meant reading project documentation and owning the deployment decisions ourselves. DNS handoff was not a vendor-led workflow; we had to explain where aggregate reports should be sent, how mailbox ingestion worked, and who maintained the database. Enterprise onboarding, escalation, and managed troubleshooting were absent, which matters if the project owner is not also the mail security operator.
Suitability
Team fit
URIports fits managed DMARC operations; DMARC-SRG fits self-hosted specialists.
URIports is the stronger fit for SMB and technical teams that want hosted reporting, exports, and enough account structure to manage several domains. DMARC-SRG is the better fit when internal operators want a free parser and accept manual workflow. If MSP workflows and alert quality are hard requirements, Suped is the practical comparison point to include before choosing either product.
URIports
Best for technical SMBs
Domain grouping worked
Client handoff needed exports
DMARC-SRG
Best for self-hosters
Manual recurring reports
Weak account separation
URIports worked best when one team owned multiple domains and needed recurring report review rather than full client workspaces. Domain grouping was usable for the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain, and exports made handoff notes easier. For MSPs, the missing client-separation model meant we would still build process outside the product for recurring reports and customer-facing remediation notes.
DMARC-SRG fit the smallest operational footprint: one technical owner, self-hosted data, and manual analysis. It did not give us clean account separation, client grouping, or a polished handoff path for MSP use. SMBs with no DMARC specialist would struggle because unknown sender classification, recurring reports, and policy movement all need internal judgment.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A managed DMARC product for teams that want reporting discipline without running infrastructure
By the second week, URIports had enough data across the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain to make daily review predictable. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easy to confirm as approved sources, and SendGrid plus Mailchimp required only normal sender ownership decisions.
The product felt strongest when we moved through evidence: source, domain, authentication result, and export. It felt weaker when we tried to run MSP-style client handoff, because account separation and recurring customer notes were not as complete as the reporting view.
Where it wins
Fast hosted setup across three domains
Readable drilldowns for SPF and DKIM results
Useful exports for stakeholder review
Public tiers make budgeting easier
Where it lags
MSP account separation felt limited
No hosted SPF flattening in our review
No blocklist or blacklist monitoring found
Higher monitoring functions sit on paid tiers
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month trial
Onboarding
Fast hosted setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
DMARC-SRG
A self-hosted parser for teams that value control over managed workflow
DMARC-SRG did the basic job once the server, database, mailbox ingestion, and cleanup settings were in place. It parsed the same aggregate reports, showed the authentication evidence, and let us inspect the unauthorized spoof sample without paying for software.
The tradeoff was time. The unknown sender needed manual classification, the forwarded SPF failure needed a person who understood forwarding behavior, and policy movement required a separate plan outside the product.
Where it wins
No software subscription cost
Self-hosted data control
Readable aggregate report tables
No published volume gate
Where it lags
Setup requires server ownership
No managed support path
No proactive alerting workflow
No hosted DNS record management
Pricing
$0 software
Free tier
Free self-hosted
Onboarding
Manual deployment
G2 rating
0 / 5
Pricing
URIports
DMARC-SRG
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand covers 3 monitored domains and 10,000 reports per month for personal use.
$0 software
The app is free to self-host; server and maintenance costs still apply.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
$7 / month
Pebble covers 5 monitored domains and 100,000 reports per month.
$0 software
Capacity depends on the database, PHP limits, storage, and ingestion schedule.
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 covers 25 monitored domains and 500,000 reports per month; report volume can differ from email volume.
$0 software
No published software cap, but operations depend on self-hosted infrastructure.
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, onboarding, custom quotas, retention, and domain limits.
$0 software
No commercial enterprise tier was published; hosting, backups, and admin work remain internal.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports prices are public list prices checked as of May 15, 2026, with monthly prices shown where a monthly tier is available. URIports charges by report quota and monitored domains, not email volume, so the large segment uses the closest public plan and report volume remains an estimate. DMARC-SRG pricing is the public $0 self-hosted software cost; infrastructure, maintenance, backups, and administrator time are not included.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn unknown senders into owners
URIports surfaced useful source evidence, and DMARC-SRG showed raw report data, but both still left the unknown sender classification as a manual decision in our test. Suped's product is built to connect sending source identification to ownership and next steps.
Reduce manual policy work
DMARC-SRG parsed the spoof sample but did not guide quarantine or reject readiness. Suped's guided fixes turn report review into concrete DNS and sender remediation work.
Make handoff cleaner for teams
URIports exports helped, but MSP-style client separation and recurring handoff notes still needed outside process. Suped's MSP workflows are designed for account separation, recurring reporting, and clearer customer 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 URIports or DMARC-SRG?
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
