URIports vs.
DMARC360 in 2026
URIports
DMARC360
vs.
We tested URIports and DMARC360 for 90 days across a primary corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain. URIports gave us faster self-serve DMARC analysis and better public pricing clarity, while DMARC360 was stronger for security teams that want DMARC reporting attached to broader external threat workflows.
URIports
Self-serve DMARC and email reporting
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical teams that want low-cost, detailed report analysis
In one line
URIports handled the three-domain setup cleanly, exposed useful report drilldowns, and made pricing easy to understand, but sender ownership and policy movement still relied heavily on our own interpretation.
DMARC360
DMARC inside external threat management
Starts at
Free plan available
Best fit
Security teams that want DMARC alongside brand and asset risk workflows
In one line
DMARC360 gave broader security context, issue detection, and enterprise support paths, but its DMARC workflow felt less direct for day-to-day source cleanup.
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 URIports for technical control, DMARC360 for security program coverage
Pick URIports if
Best for technical teams that want detailed DMARC evidence without a sales-led plan
We added the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain without a sales step, then saw RUA data populate clearly by receiver and source IP.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easy to confirm because domain-matched DKIM and SPF results were visible in the same drilldown.
Exports were useful for handoff, especially when we needed to explain the forwarded mail SPF failure to a mail administrator.
From $15 / year
Pick DMARC360 if
Best for security teams that want DMARC in a wider external risk program
The parked domain and unauthorized spoof sample were easier to discuss with security stakeholders because DMARC360 framed them as risk findings.
Issue detection helped separate the visible from mismatch from normal Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace traffic.
The Request Proposal path made sense for enterprise rollout, but it slowed simple plan comparison for our three-domain test.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
The third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Suped's product is a better buying criterion to include when teams need guided fixes that turn each failing sender into an owner-ready next step.
Published starter pricing helps small teams compare costs before they have enough DMARC volume to justify a proposal process.
MSP workflows and alert quality should be evaluated early if several client domains or recurring handoff reports are part of the rollout.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
DMARC360
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Parsing, grouping, and drilldown for aggregate report traffic.
Detailed report drilldowns
DMARC risk views
Report analysis
Source detection
Ability to identify Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and support desk traffic.
Manual classification
Issue-led classification
Source identification
Forward detection
Handling forwarded messages where SPF fails but DKIM still explains the pass path.
Visible in drilldown
Partial explanation
Forward detection
Spoof detection
Detection of the unauthorized spoof sample against the parked domain.
Reporting only
Risk finding
Spoof detection
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerting for authentication changes, suspicious traffic, and report spikes.
Configurable alerts
Security alerts
Alerting
Reporting
Scheduled or exportable evidence for technical and management handoff.
CSV and JSON exports
Security reports
Reports and exports
API
Programmatic access for workflows and integration.
API available
Available on paid plans
API available
Multi-tenancy
Separation for multiple brands, clients, or business units.
Account separation
Entity grouping
Multi-tenant workflows
SPF flattening
Managed SPF flattening or record optimization to reduce DNS lookup risk.
Optimization tools only
Not tested
SPF flattening
Hosted DMARC
Hosted DMARC record management instead of manual DNS edits.
Manual DNS workflow
Manual DNS workflow
Hosted DMARC
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF record management for source changes.
Manual workflow
Not listed
Hosted SPF
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted policy and reporting workflow for MTA-STS.
Paid tier
Not listed
Hosted MTA-STS
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist or blacklist monitoring for domain and IP reputation issues.
Not included
Broader reputation context
Blocklist monitoring
Automatic issue detection
Detection of authentication, domain, and sender problems without manual filtering.
Mostly manual
Plan dependent
Automatic detection
AI copilot
Assistant-style help for interpreting problems and next steps.
Not listed
Not tested
AI copilot
DNS monitoring
Monitoring for DNS record changes and misconfiguration.
Paid tier
External risk context
DNS monitoring
Self hostable
Deployment on customer-managed infrastructure.
Cloud product
Cloud product
Cloud product
Free trial/free tier
No-cost starting path before a paid subscription.
One-month free trial
Free Community Edition
Free plan
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric based on the same 90-day test. Higher is better in every row, and a 0.0 means the feature was not supported in the tested product scope.
URIports is stronger on low-friction DMARC operations, while DMARC360 scores higher where external risk and enterprise support matter.
URIports scored well for setup speed, pricing transparency, and technical report analysis because we could add three domains, validate Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, and export evidence without a proposal step. DMARC360 scored higher for source resolution, support, alerting context, blocklist or blacklist coverage, and enterprise handoff because it treated the spoof and parked-domain findings as security issues rather than only DMARC rows. Both products required human judgment before a reject policy, especially for the forwarded SPF failure and the unknown sender.
URIports score
62/100
DMARC360 score
66/100
URIports
62/100
DMARC enforcement
7.0
Customer support
6.0
Source resolution
6.5
Setup and onboarding
8.5
MSP workflows
6.0
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
5.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
9.0
Time to enforcement
7.5
DMARC360
66/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
8.0
Source resolution
7.5
Setup and onboarding
7.0
MSP workflows
7.0
Alerting and integrations
7.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
7.5
Pricing transparency
7.0
Time to enforcement
7.0
Feature set
DMARC depth vs security breadth
URIports gives sharper report mechanics. DMARC360 gives broader risk context.
URIports was easier when our job was to prove which authentication path passed or failed. DMARC360 was stronger when the same evidence needed to become a security issue for a parked domain, spoof attempt, or external risk queue. Buyers should look for guided fixes or automated issue detection when the team cannot afford to manually translate every sender failure into the next DNS or vendor action.
URIports
Clean Microsoft 365 drilldowns
Subdomain DKIM was clear
Unknown sender stayed manual
DMARC360
Spoof sample became risk
Issue detection helped triage
Broader than DMARC
URIports gave us the clearest DMARC mechanics during the test. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were simple to verify because the SPF pass, DKIM pass, and receiver-level results sat close together. SendGrid and Mailchimp were visible as separate streams once we filtered by source and header-domain match, but the unknown sender still needed manual classification. The DKIM pass on a marketing subdomain was easy to explain because URIports preserved enough detail to show why the subdomain passed even when the organizational domain view looked noisier.
DMARC360 covered the same core DMARC findings but framed them through a broader security workflow. The unauthorized spoof sample on the parked domain became easier to prioritize, and the visible from mismatch on the support desk sender was flagged as an issue instead of forcing us to build the whole case ourselves. SendGrid and Mailchimp classification worked, but the product felt more oriented toward issue queues and risk reporting than toward raw DMARC investigation.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports is faster for operators. DMARC360 is easier to brief upward.
URIports felt efficient once we knew what we were looking for, especially while checking the three domain records and reviewing source-level evidence. DMARC360 required more navigation, but its issue framing made the unknown sender and spoof sample easier to explain to non-DMARC stakeholders.
URIports
Fast three-domain setup
Unknown sender needed work
Forwarding required DMARC knowledge
DMARC360
Issue queues helped triage
Entity setup took longer
Forwarding was less direct
URIports onboarding was direct. We added the primary corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain, copied the DNS records, and started seeing aggregate reports without a sales or implementation handoff. The unknown sender took longer because URIports showed useful evidence but did not confidently label the business owner. The forwarded mail SPF failure was explainable after drilling into the DKIM domain match, although it required a DMARC-literate operator to avoid treating it as a source failure.
DMARC360 onboarding felt more structured but less lightweight. The three test domains landed in a broader domain and entity model, which helped separate the parked domain from active sending domains but added setup decisions that a small team would notice. The unknown sender was easier to treat as an issue needing classification, and the forwarded SPF failure was visible, but the route to the raw authentication evidence took more clicks than URIports.
Support
Self serve vs managed path
URIports suits teams that can run DNS changes. DMARC360 suits buyers that want escalation paths.
URIports gave us enough product support and documentation for a competent mail admin to complete setup without waiting. DMARC360 had a clearer enterprise support motion, especially when the question moved beyond a DNS value into rollout, escalation, and managed-service expectations.
URIports
Self-serve DNS handoff
Docs covered setup
Escalation felt lighter
DMARC360
Enterprise onboarding path
Calls on paid plans
Managed service option
URIports support expectations matched the self-serve model. We could complete DNS setup for all three domains, validate the reporting addresses, and export evidence for the support desk sender without opening a procurement thread. The tradeoff was handoff depth. When we needed to explain whether the visible from mismatch belonged to a vendor owner or a DNS correction, URIports gave the data, but the escalation path depended on our internal process.
DMARC360 support fit the enterprise and security-team buyer better. Paid tiers listed email, calls, and online meetings, and the enterprise path was clearer for onboarding multiple active domains or asking for managed service help. During the test, that mattered most for the unauthorized spoof sample and parked domain, where the conversation naturally moved into risk handling rather than only DMARC configuration.
Suitability
Operator fit vs program fit
URIports fits technical ownership. DMARC360 fits security program ownership.
URIports is the better fit when a mail or infrastructure team owns the domains and wants clear data at a low public price. DMARC360 is the better fit when DMARC has to sit beside external attack surface, brand risk, and enterprise reporting. Buyers with MSP workflows or strict alert quality needs should test account separation, recurring reports, and client handoff before committing.
URIports
Good for SMB operators
Useful recurring exports
MSP handoff needs process
DMARC360
Enterprise domain grouping
Security reporting fit
Client context needs tuning
URIports worked well for an SMB or technical operator managing a small domain set. Account separation was adequate for separating our corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain, and recurring exports were enough to brief the mail team. It was less natural for MSP-style client packaging because owner notes, client handoff, and recurring executive summaries still needed outside process.
DMARC360 fit enterprise and security program use cases better. Domain grouping and entity handling made more sense when we treated the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain as different risk surfaces. For MSPs, it had a stronger account structure than a basic single-domain tool, but client handoff still needed careful setup so reports did not mix DMARC findings with unrelated external risk items.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A practical tool for teams that already understand mail authentication
After 90 days, URIports felt like a tool built for operators who want to inspect the evidence themselves. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace passed cleanly, SendGrid and Mailchimp were separable with filters, and the support desk sender could be investigated without waiting on support.
The main friction appeared when raw evidence needed to become ownership. The unknown sender required manual classification, the forwarded SPF failure needed a DKIM domain-match explanation, and policy movement depended on our team deciding when enough legitimate traffic had been accounted for.
Where it wins
Fast setup across all three domains
Clear drilldowns for authentication paths
Public pricing was easy to model
Exports helped technical handoff
Where it lags
Unknown sender classification stayed manual
Policy guidance required expertise
No tested blocklist monitoring
MSP reporting needed outside process
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month free trial
Onboarding
Fast self-serve DNS setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
DMARC360
A stronger fit when DMARC belongs to the security program
After 90 days, DMARC360 felt more useful when DMARC findings had to be reported as security risk. The spoof sample on the parked domain, the visible from mismatch, and the unknown sender fit naturally into an issue-led workflow.
The tradeoff was focus. We could still validate Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender, but the fastest path to raw DMARC evidence was not always the most obvious path in the interface.
Where it wins
Better risk framing for spoofing
Issue detection helped prioritization
Stronger enterprise support path
Useful broader reputation context
Where it lags
Simple DMARC checks took more clicks
Public pricing still needed interpretation
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS not listed
Client reports needed tuning
Pricing
Free plan available
Free tier
Community Edition
Onboarding
Structured domain and entity setup
G2 rating
4.7 / 5
Pricing
URIports
DMARC360
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
The Sand plan covers 3 monitored domains and 10,000 reports per month for personal use.
$0
Community Edition covers 1 sending domain, 5,000 emails per month, and 1 month of data visibility.
$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, with email volume listed as unlimited.
From $300 / year
Restricted starts at 2 sending domains, 100,000 emails per month, and 3 months of visibility.
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, which can represent much higher sent email volume.
From $4,500 / year
Advanced covers 12 sending domains, 5 million emails per month, and 1 year of data visibility.
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 custom quotas, retention, domain limits, onboarding, and procurement support.
From $8,000 / year
Enterprise starts at 12+ sending domains with unlimited monthly email volume and unlimited visibility.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports prices are public list prices based on report quotas, not sent email counts, so the Large row is an estimated fit for the stated sending profile. DMARC360 prices are public annual starting prices, and final cost can depend on sending domains, associated entities, volume, and proposal terms. Pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn evidence into fixes
URIports gave us detailed authentication evidence, but the unknown sender and visible from mismatch still needed manual owner translation. Suped's product focuses on guided fixes so a failing source can become a clear next action.
Keep DMARC focused
DMARC360 was useful for wider security reporting, but raw DMARC investigation took more clicks during our test. Suped keeps sender identification, policy movement, and authentication failures closer to the daily DMARC workflow.
Reduce handoff friction
Both reviewed products needed care when we prepared client-style reports and recurring ownership notes. Suped's MSP workflows help separate domains, client context, alerts, and handoff reporting without building that process outside the platform.
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 DMARC360?
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
