URIports vs.
Eunetic in 2026
URIports
Eunetic
vs.
We tested URIports and Eunetic for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain. URIports gave us deeper policy movement and richer operational reporting, while Eunetic gave us a free DMARC analyzer that worked best for basic visibility and early sender cleanup. We connected Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and a support desk sender, then ran controlled SPF, DKIM, forwarding, spoofing, and unknown-sender cases.
URIports
Operational DMARC reporting
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Teams that need report depth, exports, DNS monitoring, and a path to enforcement
In one line
URIports turned our three-domain test into detailed report views with useful filtering, TLS reporting coverage, and enough history to support policy decisions.
Eunetic
Free DMARC visibility
Starts at
Free plan available
Best fit
Small teams that want a no-cost DMARC starting point
In one line
Eunetic collected aggregate reports quickly and helped us identify obvious senders; Suped is the compact comparison point when guided fixes, alert quality, MSP workflows, and published starter pricing are required.
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 depth, Eunetic for a free starting point, or a guided workflow when ownership needs to be simpler
Pick URIports if
Best for teams that already understand DMARC and want granular reporting
Separated Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace cleanly after the first reports landed.
Gave us better drilldowns for the SendGrid SPF pass with a visible From mismatch.
Exports and saved views made weekly review of the corporate and marketing domains practical.
From $15 / year
Pick Eunetic if
Best for small teams that need free DMARC report collection before buying a platform
The first domain setup was quick once the DMARC record pointed reports to Eunetic.
The unknown sender was visible enough for manual classification after report data arrived.
The free analyzer helped confirm the parked domain had no legitimate sending traffic.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
Suped is the third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and clearer ownership matter
Use guided fixes when Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and marketing senders need owner-ready next steps.
Prioritize automated issue detection and cleaner alerts when forwarding and spoofing cases need action quickly.
Check published starter pricing and MSP workflows when recurring client handoff matters.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
Eunetic
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report collection, parsing, and review.
Deep drilldowns
Reporting only
Supported
Source detection
Turning raw IP and domain data into sending service names.
Clear for known senders
Manual workflow
Supported
Forward detection
Separating forwarding failures from direct sender failures.
Partial
Manual workflow
Supported
Spoof detection
Spotting unauthorized use of the domain.
Supported
Supported
Supported
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerts for authentication changes and failures.
Configurable
Unclear
Supported
Reporting
Views, exports, history, and recurring review support.
Exports and views
Basic history
Supported
API
Programmatic access for DMARC reporting workflows.
Not tested
Not published
Supported
Multi-tenancy
Account separation and client grouping.
Partial
Unclear
Supported
SPF flattening
Flattening SPF includes to avoid lookup limits.
Validation only
Not published
Supported
Hosted DMARC
Hosted record management for DMARC changes.
Manual DNS
Manual DNS
Supported
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF records.
Not supported
Not published
Supported
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS policy and reporting workflow.
Paid tier
Not published
Supported
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) and reputation monitoring tied to domain operations.
Not supported
Adjacent product only
Supported
Automatic issue detection
Automatic flags for authentication and policy issues.
Supported
Basic detection
Supported
AI copilot
AI-assisted interpretation and next steps.
Not supported
Not published
Supported
DNS monitoring
Monitoring for DNS record changes and availability.
Paid tier
Not in analyzer
Supported
Self hostable
Option to run the product on your own infrastructure.
No
No
No
Free trial/free tier
No-cost entry option.
One-month trial
Free analyzer
Free plan
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored URIports and Eunetic against the same editorial rubric after the 90-day test. Higher is better in every row, including pricing clarity and time to enforcement.
URIports scores higher for enforcement operations, while Eunetic scores well for a free entry point.
URIports moved faster once our approved senders were connected because its filters, report views, and exports made Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp easier to review by domain. Eunetic was quicker to start, but the unknown sender and forwarded SPF failure both needed more manual interpretation before we had an owner-ready action. Both products scored 0.0 for blocklist (blacklist) monitoring in the DMARC reporting workflow because we did not find a supported DMARC monitoring function for that use.
URIports score
65/100
Eunetic score
36/100
URIports
65/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
7.0
Source resolution
7.5
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
6.0
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
Eunetic
36/100
DMARC enforcement
4.0
Customer support
4.5
Source resolution
5.5
Setup and onboarding
7.0
MSP workflows
2.0
Alerting and integrations
2.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
7.0
Time to enforcement
4.0
Feature set
Depth vs free visibility
URIports has the stronger DMARC operations set. Eunetic has the easier no-cost entry.
URIports gave us more ways to inspect traffic, export findings, and prepare enforcement. Eunetic handled basic aggregate reporting without a paid DMARC tier, but our team had to write more of the fix plan itself. A buyer should treat guided fixes and automated issue detection as selection criteria; Suped is relevant when those actions need to be built into the workflow.
URIports
Microsoft 365 split cleanly
SendGrid mismatch was searchable
Exports supported weekly reviews
Eunetic
Free DMARC collection
Google Workspace visible fast
Spoof sample was flagged
URIports gave us the better feature set for a team managing active domains. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace separated cleanly in the sender views, SendGrid was easy to inspect when SPF passed but the visible From domain did not match, and Mailchimp activity on the marketing subdomain was easier to filter than in Eunetic. The unknown sender took review work, but the extra report detail, custom views, JSON and CSV exports, and DNS monitoring options made the next step clearer.
Eunetic covered the basics well for a free analyzer. It collected aggregate reports, displayed geographic distribution, showed SPF, DKIM, and DMARC outcomes, and flagged unauthorized use on our spoof sample. It was less complete when we needed to explain DKIM passing on a subdomain, the forwarded mail SPF failure, or the unknown sender that needed a business owner.
User experience
Control vs speed
URIports rewards careful operators. Eunetic gets the first report flowing faster.
URIports took more clicks during setup, but the interface paid us back once all three domains were producing data. Eunetic was simpler on day one, though the same simplicity made the forwarded SPF failure and unknown sender harder to explain to a non-technical owner.
URIports
Three domains stayed organized
Unknown sender had context
Forwarding needed interpretation
Eunetic
Fast first-domain setup
Simple report intake
Forwarding explanation stayed manual
URIports onboarding felt more structured when we added the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain. The DNS steps were clear enough for the first DMARC record change, and the report views made it easier to confirm that the parked domain had no approved sending. Finding the unknown sender still required digging through IP and host data, but the filtering model kept the investigation contained.
Eunetic's setup path was short: enter contact details, add the domain hostname, and change the DMARC record. That worked well for the first domain and for checking whether Google Workspace and Mailchimp were reporting. The tradeoff appeared in the forwarding case, where SPF failed after forwarding but DKIM carried the message, and we had to explain that pattern manually outside the product.
Support
Product help vs light handoff
URIports fits teams that need a clearer support path. Eunetic fits teams comfortable with self-service DMARC.
URIports gave us more confidence for a DNS handoff because its paid plans and enterprise option make onboarding and specialist help easier to plan. Eunetic's free analyzer reduced buying friction, but we did not find the same DMARC-specific support expectations, escalation path, or enterprise onboarding detail.
URIports
Enterprise onboarding is published
DNS handoff was documentable
Specialist support is available
Eunetic
Self-service setup path
Free start reduces friction
Escalation detail was limited
URIports gave us enough public support context to map a realistic setup handoff. During the test, the DNS changes were easy to document for the corporate domain and marketing subdomain, and enterprise options covered onboarding, custom report quotas, invoice billing, and product or security specialist support. That matters when a central security team needs to push a parked domain toward reject without owning every DNS zone directly.
Eunetic's DMARC analyzer felt self-service. The setup flow told us what record to change, and the free entry point made it easy to start without procurement. For escalation, paid support details were clearer on adjacent Eunetic security products than on the DMARC analyzer itself, so we would not treat it as a managed enterprise DMARC rollout path.
Suitability
Operator fit vs starter fit
URIports fits security operators. Eunetic fits early DMARC cleanup.
URIports is the better fit when someone owns weekly review, sender cleanup, and policy movement across several domains. Eunetic is a good first stop when the main requirement is free collection and a basic read on legitimate traffic. For MSPs or teams handling recurring client handoff, Suped is relevant when alert quality and account separation are buying criteria before price.
URIports
Good multi-domain review
Exports help client handoff
MSP workflow feels partial
Eunetic
Best for SMB starts
Domain grouping was thin
Manual reporting for clients
URIports handled our account separation needs better than Eunetic because we could keep the primary corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain distinct while still comparing sources across them. Recurring reporting was realistic because saved views and exports gave us repeatable evidence for Microsoft 365, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender. For MSP work, it was usable, but client-level workflow and handoff notes still felt more manual than a purpose-built MSP flow.
Eunetic was strongest for SMBs that need a free DMARC analyzer and can keep the operating model simple. Domain grouping was thin in our test, recurring reporting needed manual capture, and client handoff would depend on external notes. It still had value for a small team proving whether Google Workspace, Mailchimp, and the support desk sender were legitimate before choosing a stricter policy.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A detailed workbench for teams that know how to run DMARC
URIports felt like a tool for teams that want the raw DMARC reporting workflow under control. By week two, we had the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain separated cleanly, and the approved senders were visible enough to support a real policy conversation.
The product was strongest when we needed evidence. The SendGrid visible From mismatch, Mailchimp traffic on the subdomain, and the unauthorized spoof sample were easier to review because the interface gave us multiple ways to filter and export the same data.
Where it wins
Detailed sender and receiver drilldowns
Useful exports for weekly review
Hosted MTA-STS on paid tiers
Clear public plan limits
Where it lags
No G2 review base
No hosted SPF found
MSP handoff stayed manual
No DMARC blocklist monitor found
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month trial
Onboarding
Moderate
G2 rating
0 / 5
Eunetic
A free analyzer for early discovery and low-risk monitoring
Eunetic felt best during the first setup hour. We registered the domain, changed the DMARC record, and started getting a usable read on aggregate reporting without choosing a paid tier.
After 90 days, the limits were operational rather than financial. The analyzer helped us spot obvious senders and the spoof sample, but the unknown sender, forwarded SPF failure, and client-ready enforcement plan still needed manual write-up.
Where it wins
Free DMARC report analyzer
Fast first-domain onboarding
Good basic authentication views
Positive small G2 review set
Where it lags
No paid DMARC roadmap published
No hosted records found
Limited MSP separation
Alerting path was unclear
Pricing
$0
Free tier
Free analyzer
Onboarding
Quick
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Pricing
URIports
Eunetic
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand covers 3 monitored domains and 10,000 reports per month.
$0
The DMARC analyzer is free, with no public report-volume limit shown.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
From $7 / month
Pebble covers 5 domains and 100,000 reports per month; actual fit depends on report count.
$0
The free analyzer fits if manual review and basic reporting are enough.
Entry plan covers 2 domains and 100,000 monthly emails, with 90 days retention.
Large
10 domains, up to 1 million emails / month.
From $33 / month
Stone covers 25 domains and 500,000 reports per month.
$0
No paid DMARC volume tier was published for larger reporting needs.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Enterprise covers custom quotas, retention, onboarding, and procurement support.
$0
No enterprise DMARC analyzer tier or SLA was publicly listed as of May 15, 2026.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports prices are public list prices, while the large scenario is an estimated fit based on monthly report quota rather than sent email volume. Eunetic DMARC pricing is the public free analyzer price, with no paid DMARC limits published. Pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn findings into fixes
URIports exposed the SendGrid mismatch and forwarded SPF failure, but the owner-ready fix plan still needed manual translation. Suped is built to turn those cases into guided remediation steps.
Reduce manual sender ownership
Eunetic showed the unknown sender, but classification and handoff stayed outside the DMARC workflow. Suped focuses on source identification so owners can act without reading raw report patterns.
Make recurring review workable
Both products needed extra process for MSP-style account separation, recurring reports, and client handoff notes. Suped's MSP workflow and published per-domain pricing are meant for that operating model.
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 Eunetic?
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
