Suped

URIports vs DMARCPal

Choose URIports for extensive reporting, DMARCPal for straightforward DMARC implementation.
LogoLogo
First comparison imageSecond comparison image
Compare product functionality

Feature set

LogoLogo
First comparison imageSecond comparison image
URIports offers a comprehensive suite of monitoring tools beyond just DMARC. It includes reporting for Content Security Policy (CSP), Network Error Logging (NEL), SMTP TLS-RPT, Permissions Policy, COOP, and COEP. This broad coverage makes it a robust choice for holistic web and email security monitoring, going well beyond standard DMARC requirements.
We found the advanced DMARC explanation tool particularly useful, simplifying complex DMARC data into actionable insights. The platform also includes SPF, DKIM, and MTA-STS validation and optimization tools, making it a powerful platform for maintaining and improving email deliverability and security postures.
DMARCPal focuses primarily on DMARC reporting and implementation, providing essential tools tailored for managing DMARC, SPF, and DKIM. Its Lite plan offers basic access to email provider reports, making it suitable for users who have a solid understanding of these protocols and simply need to monitor their compliance.
The Standard and Premium plans introduce additional tools to aid DMARC implementation and debugging, including email alerts for broken DNS records. While not as broad in scope as URIports, DMARCPal provides a focused and streamlined approach to DMARC, which can be advantageous for users who prefer simplicity and directness in their DMARC management.
How easy is each product to use

User experience

LogoLogo
First comparison imageSecond comparison image
URIports presents a slick and easy-to-use interface, which we found intuitive despite the platform's extensive feature set. The dashboard is well-organized, allowing for quick navigation through various report types and detailed data. Their ability to analyze, combine, and prioritize reports for instant insight is a significant plus, reducing the time spent sifting through raw data.
However, with such a broad array of features, new users might experience a slight learning curve. The depth of data enrichment, including geocoding, hostname lookup, and whois data, offers powerful insights but can also be overwhelming without proper guidance. Once accustomed, the interface becomes a powerful ally in email security management.
DMARCPal aims for a straightforward user experience, particularly catering to those who prioritize basic DMARC reporting without unnecessary complexities. Its design seems to be geared towards users who are already familiar with DMARC, SPF, and DKIM, offering a clear path to monitor email provider reports.
While directness can be a strength, the user interface might feel less modern or feature-rich compared to more comprehensive platforms. We noted that the pricing information and detailed feature comparisons are loaded dynamically via an iframe, which isn't the smoothest experience when evaluating the product. For those who prefer a no-frills approach to DMARC, its simplicity can be a benefit.
Which product has the best support

Support

LogoLogo
First comparison imageSecond comparison image
URIports offers basic product support across all tiers, which is a good starting point for most users. For those requiring more in-depth assistance, the 'Himalaya' tier explicitly includes 'In-Depth Premium Support.' This tiered approach means that comprehensive support is available, but it comes at a higher price point.
We appreciate the clear delineation of support levels, allowing businesses to choose a plan that aligns with their needs and internal expertise. For most day-to-day queries, the basic support is generally responsive and helpful, guiding us through the platform's features and data.
DMARCPal's support structure is not explicitly detailed in the provided information, beyond the general understanding that a product of this nature would offer some form of customer assistance. The emphasis on the Lite plan being for "tech-savvy individuals" suggests that, for basic needs, users might be expected to have a good grasp of DMARC principles.
Without specific details on response times, channels, or support hours, it's difficult to make a direct comparison on the quality or availability of DMARCPal's support. Users considering DMARCPal should factor in their own technical capabilities and potential need for assistance, as higher-tier plans don't explicitly mention enhanced support.
Who should use each product

Suitability

LogoLogo
First comparison imageSecond comparison image
URIports is an excellent fit for enterprises and MSPs (managed service providers) that require extensive monitoring capabilities beyond DMARC. Its multi-tenancy 'Team Access' feature, customizable views, and API make it suitable for managing numerous domains and complex organizational structures. The detailed data enrichment is invaluable for advanced threat intelligence.
SMBs (small to medium businesses) with growing email security needs or those handling sensitive data would also benefit from URIports, particularly if they anticipate needing features like Hosted MTA-STS or robust DNS monitoring in the future. The 'Sand' and 'Pebble' tiers offer an accessible entry point for smaller operations, making it scalable.
DMARCPal is best suited for tech-savvy SMBs and IT teams who primarily need focused DMARC reporting and management. Its emphasis on core DMARC, SPF, and DKIM tools aligns well with organizations that have a clear understanding of their email security requirements and prefer a direct solution without excessive peripheral features.
For MSPs or enterprises requiring advanced multi-tenancy, broader web security reporting, or deep-dive forensic capabilities, DMARCPal might feel less comprehensive. However, its simplicity makes it a viable option for those looking to implement DMARC efficiently without a steep learning curve or the overhead of managing a vast array of security tools.

How does URIports compare with DMARCPal?

Logo
Logo
DMARC report analysis
Source detection
Forward detection
Spoof detection
Notifications and alerts
Reporting
API
Multi-tenancy
SPF flattening
Hosted DMARC
BIMI
MTA-STS/TLS-RPT
Blocklists and reputation
AI copilot
DNS monitoring
Self hostable
Free trial/free tier

Drawbacks and what to watch out for

While both URIports and DMARCPal serve the crucial purpose of DMARC reporting, they each have distinct drawbacks. URIports, with its extensive feature set, can sometimes present a steep learning curve for new users, and its premium features like in-depth support are locked behind higher-priced tiers. DMARCPal, on the other hand, offers a more streamlined experience, but its lack of detail regarding advanced features, API access, and explicit multi-tenancy support might limit its appeal for larger organizations or MSPs seeking a more robust, all-encompassing solution.
We have pulled the average ratings from G2 for each product, and also included the most recent negative reviews for each product in full. Positive reviews tend to have less detail and have a higher chance of being fraudulent, so negative reviews are a better signal for your decision.
Logo
Logo

Pricing

URIports offers transparent, tiered pricing with discounts for annual payments, while DMARCPal requires direct contact for specific pricing details, making upfront cost comparison difficult.
Logo
Logo
Small
USD 1/month (Sand tier)
Contact for pricing
Medium
USD 6/month (Pebble tier)
Contact for pricing
Large
USD 28/month (Stone tier, up to 500k reports)
Contact for pricing
Enterprise
USD 110/month (Mountain tier, up to 2.5M reports)
Contact for pricing

Suped hard sell incoming!

Still not satisfied with URIports or DMARCPal?
Logo
Logo
Suped double trouble

What makes Suped different

Automated sender discovery that finds shadow IT and third-party services
DMARC copilot that pinpoints failures and prescribes the exact fix
Guided path to full p=reject enforcement, safely and quickly
Proactive alerts to prevent misconfigurations before they block your mail
Get started - free

Frequently asked questions