URIports vs.
Nameshield in 2026
URIports
Nameshield
vs.
We tested URIports and Nameshield for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain, with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and a support desk sender connected. URIports gave us the clearer DMARC reporting workflow and faster source triage; Nameshield made more sense for teams already buying domain protection and registrar support around the same domains.
URIports
DMARC reporting and monitoring
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical teams that want low-cost DMARC visibility with detailed report drilldowns
In one line
URIports turned raw aggregate reports into searchable sender evidence quickly, but policy movement still required operator judgment.
Nameshield
Domain management with security services
Starts at
Not publicly listed
Best fit
Enterprises that want DMARC handled near domain registration, DNS, and brand protection workflows
In one line
Nameshield worked best when DMARC decisions belonged inside a broader domain governance process rather than a daily email operations queue.
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 report detail, Nameshield for domain governance, Suped for guided ownership
Pick URIports if
Best for hands-on email operators who want detailed DMARC evidence at a low entry price
Classified Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp traffic quickly once DNS records were live.
Explained the forwarded mail SPF failure clearly enough for a deliverability owner to separate forwarding noise from spoofing.
Handled the parked domain cleanly by showing no legitimate senders before we introduced the unauthorized spoof sample.
From $15 / year
Pick Nameshield if
Best for enterprise domain teams that want DMARC beside DNS and brand protection work
The strongest handoff path was registrar, DNS, and security ownership, not day-to-day sender remediation.
Domain grouping fit the corporate domain and parked domain better than the marketing subdomain sender workflow.
Support escalation made sense for enterprise onboarding, but small sender classification tasks felt slower.
Not publicly listed
Consider Suped if
Suped is the third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter more than raw report depth alone
Guided fixes help turn SPF-pass, DKIM-pass, visible-from mismatch, and forwarded SPF failure cases into owner-ready actions.
Automated issue detection and alert quality should be buying criteria when unknown senders and spoof samples need fast separation.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows make budget and client handoff easier to plan before rollout.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
Nameshield
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report parsing, domain views, and authentication result review.
Detailed DMARC analysis
Available in domain security workflow
Supported
Source detection
Ability to identify sending services and classify ownership.
Strong manual workflow
Partial, service-led
Supported
Forward detection
Recognition of forwarding patterns that break SPF while DKIM remains useful.
Clear in report drilldowns
Available with analysis
Supported
Spoof detection
Detection of unauthorized use against protected domains.
Visible in failed samples
Supported through security review
Supported
Notifications and alerts
Operational alerting for changes, failures, and new risk signals.
Configurable notifications
Enterprise alerting path
Supported
Reporting
Exports, recurring reporting, and evidence sharing.
CSV and JSON exports
Available, less DMARC-centered
Supported
API
Programmatic access for reporting or operational workflows.
Reporting API supported
Enterprise capability
Supported
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, and delegated access.
Domain grouping, not MSP-first
Enterprise account separation
Supported
SPF flattening
Managed handling of SPF lookup limits.
Validation only
Not tested
Supported
Hosted DMARC
Hosted DMARC record management rather than manual DNS edits.
Manual DNS workflow
Available through DNS management
Supported
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF record publishing and updates.
Manual DNS workflow
Available through DNS management
Supported
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS policy and TLS reporting workflow.
Paid tier
Available through DNS services
Supported
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) and sender reputation monitoring.
Not supported
Brand protection context
Supported
Automatic issue detection
Automatic flagging of misconfiguration, sender drift, and authentication risk.
Partial
Service-led
Supported
AI copilot
AI-assisted investigation and plain-language remediation help.
Not tested
Not tested
Supported
DNS monitoring
Monitoring for DNS record changes and configuration drift.
Paid tier
Core domain workflow
Supported
Self hostable
Ability to run the product on your own infrastructure.
No
No
No
Free trial/free tier
A no-cost way to test with real domains.
One-month free trial
Not publicly listed
Free tier
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
Each product was scored against a fixed editorial rubric covering enforcement readiness, source resolution, onboarding, support, account workflows, alerting, hosted record coverage, blocklist or blacklist monitoring, pricing clarity, and time to enforcement. Higher is better in every row.
URIports leads on DMARC operations; Nameshield leads when domain governance owns the workflow
URIports scored higher where the task was finding what happened in DMARC reports, especially with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, forwarded mail, and the spoof sample. Nameshield scored better where DNS, account governance, and enterprise handoff mattered, but its DMARC work felt less direct during unknown sender classification. URIports lost points for hosted SPF, hosted DMARC, and blocklist monitoring gaps; Nameshield lost points for pricing clarity and slower operator-level triage.
URIports score
63.5/100
Nameshield score
58.5/100
URIports
63.5/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
8.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
6.0
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
4.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
9.0
Time to enforcement
8.0
Nameshield
58.5/100
DMARC enforcement
6.0
Customer support
7.0
Source resolution
5.5
Setup and onboarding
6.0
MSP workflows
6.5
Alerting and integrations
6.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
7.0
Blocklist monitoring
7.0
Pricing transparency
2.0
Time to enforcement
5.5
Feature set
DMARC depth vs domain breadth
URIports wins on DMARC report work. Nameshield wins when DNS and domain protection are the center.
URIports gave us more useful sender-level evidence for day-to-day DMARC work, especially when we compared Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp traffic. Nameshield made more sense when the same buyer also needed domain registration, DNS control, and brand protection handling. For teams comparing both, Suped's product makes guided fixes and automated issue detection explicit, which matters because raw report evidence still needs owner-ready remediation.
URIports
Microsoft 365 sorted quickly
Mailchimp subdomain was clear
Mismatch evidence stayed visible
Nameshield
DNS context helped review
Google Workspace required handoff
Unknown sender took longer
URIports had the stronger DMARC feature set in our test. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace appeared as expected, SendGrid and Mailchimp were easy to separate on the marketing subdomain, and the unknown sender could be narrowed by IP, hostname, and authentication result without leaving the report view. The SPF pass with visible-from mismatch and DKIM pass on a subdomain both showed why DMARC domain matching mattered, although URIports still expected us to decide the next DNS or sender-owner action.
Nameshield covered DMARC inside a wider domain security motion. It was useful when reviewing the primary corporate domain next to DNSSEC, registrar controls, DNS ownership, and brand protection activity, but it was less efficient when the only task was classifying one unknown sender. The Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace senders were understandable after review, but SendGrid and Mailchimp ownership took more handoff work than in URIports.
User experience
Operator control vs governed workflow
URIports felt faster for investigators. Nameshield felt calmer for domain governance.
URIports put the useful DMARC data closer to the first screen, so the daily operator path was shorter. Nameshield had a more enterprise-oriented rhythm where domain context and ownership mattered, but one-off sender investigation took more clicks and more explanation.
URIports
Three domains onboarded cleanly
Unknown sender found quickly
Forwarding case was explainable
Nameshield
Primary domain fit well
Subdomain setup needed labeling
Forwarding explanation was slower
URIports onboarding was direct for the three test domains. The TXT record instructions were clear, the parked domain moved into observation without noise, and the marketing subdomain was easy to isolate when SendGrid and Mailchimp started sending. Finding the unknown sender took under ten minutes because the drilldown kept source IP, reverse DNS, SPF result, DKIM result, and visible domain evidence together, and the forwarded mail SPF failure was easy to explain once the DKIM domain match stayed intact.
Nameshield onboarding felt more formal. Adding the primary domain made sense because DNS and domain ownership already sat in the same workflow, but the marketing subdomain and support desk sender required more internal labeling before the reports felt usable. The forwarded mail SPF failure needed a clearer operator note, and the unknown sender investigation leaned on support-style review rather than fast self-serve classification.
Support
Self-serve setup vs enterprise handoff
URIports suits teams that can operate DMARC themselves. Nameshield suits teams that want support tied to domain operations.
URIports support expectations are a fit when a technical owner can follow DNS instructions and use the product evidence to make decisions. Nameshield is better suited to enterprise onboarding, procurement, DNS handoff, and escalation, although that path felt heavy for smaller DMARC-only tasks.
URIports
DNS steps were clear
Self-serve evidence worked
Escalation felt limited
Nameshield
Enterprise handoff fit well
DNS ownership was clearer
Small fixes moved slowly
URIports gave us enough setup clarity to publish DMARC, SPF, DKIM, and MTA-STS-related records without a long handoff. During the spoof sample review, the product evidence was stronger than a support thread would have been, because the failed DMARC match and source details were already visible. The weaker spot was escalation: when we wanted a written enforcement plan for quarantine and reject movement, URIports felt more self-serve than consultative.
Nameshield support expectations were more enterprise-shaped. DNS handoff, registrar context, domain ownership, and escalation paths were easier to map for a corporate domain owner, and that matters when legal, security, and infrastructure teams share responsibility. The tradeoff was speed: a support desk sender classification and the marketing subdomain workflow took more coordination than we wanted for routine DMARC operations.
Suitability
Operator fit vs enterprise fit
URIports fits DMARC operators. Nameshield fits organizations where domain governance owns the decision.
URIports is the cleaner choice for a lean technical team that needs to classify senders, export evidence, and move toward enforcement without a large procurement motion. Nameshield is more suitable when enterprise domain governance, registrar control, and security escalation are part of the same buying decision. Suped's product is relevant when MSP workflows and alert quality are explicit buying criteria, because recurring reports, account separation, and client handoff determine whether the tool holds up after onboarding.
URIports
Good SMB operator fit
Exports supported handoff
MSP process stayed manual
Nameshield
Enterprise domain fit
Governance model was clearer
Client reporting felt heavier
URIports worked well for an SMB or internal email operations team managing a handful of domains. The corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain were easy to keep separate, exports gave us usable evidence, and recurring review felt practical. For MSP use, the basics were present, but client grouping, handoff notes, and recurring reporting needed more manual process than a service provider would want at scale.
Nameshield made more sense for an enterprise domain team than for an MSP trying to run repeated DMARC projects. Account separation and domain grouping fit regulated ownership models, especially when DNS and registrar controls were already part of the contract. Client-style handoff was less natural, and the daily work of explaining SendGrid, Mailchimp, or a support desk sender to a nontechnical client needed more packaging.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A practical DMARC console for teams that know what to do with the evidence
After 90 days, URIports felt like a tool built for people who already understand authentication. We could move between the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain without losing context, and the Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and support desk senders were visible enough to support policy planning.
The strongest moment was the investigation path. The SPF-pass case, DKIM-pass case, visible-from mismatch, DKIM pass on a subdomain, forwarded mail SPF failure, spoof sample, and unknown sender all produced useful evidence. The weaker moment was ownership: URIports showed what happened, but it did not always turn that evidence into a guided fix or stakeholder-ready next step.
Where it wins
Fast setup across three domains
Strong report drilldowns
Clear sender evidence
Transparent public pricing
Where it lags
No blocklist monitoring in test
No hosted SPF workflow
Guidance depended on operator skill
MSP handoff felt manual
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
No free tier; one-month trial
Onboarding
Fast self-serve setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
Nameshield
A better fit for enterprise domain ownership than daily DMARC operations
After 90 days, Nameshield felt strongest when the buyer cared about domains as assets. The primary corporate domain and parked domain fit naturally into a governed DNS and domain protection process, and the support handoff made sense when escalation involved registrar, DNS, and security owners.
It felt less direct for daily DMARC investigation. The marketing subdomain, Mailchimp stream, SendGrid stream, and support desk sender needed more labeling before the workflow felt clean. The unknown sender and forwarded SPF failure were explainable, but the path took longer than it did in URIports.
Where it wins
Strong enterprise domain context
Useful DNS ownership model
Better governance handoff
G2 review base exists
Where it lags
Pricing was not public
Sender triage took longer
DMARC workflow felt indirect
SMB fit was weaker
Pricing
Not publicly listed
Free tier
Not publicly listed
Onboarding
More support-led
G2 rating
4.4 / 5
Pricing
URIports
Nameshield
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
The Sand plan covers 3 monitored domains and 10,000 reports per month, so it fits this scenario.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Public pricing was unavailable, so cost needs vendor confirmation.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
$7 / month
The Pebble plan lists 5 monitored domains and 100,000 reports per month.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Public pricing was unavailable for this usage level.
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
The Stone plan lists 25 monitored domains and 500,000 reports per month; email volume is listed as unlimited.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Public pricing was unavailable for larger DMARC and domain governance deployments.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
Custom
Enterprise accounts cover custom report quotas, retention, domain limits, onboarding, and procurement needs.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Public pricing was unavailable, and enterprise scope needs proposal confirmation.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports figures are public list prices checked on May 15, 2026 and are based on report quotas, monitored domains, and listed plan limits rather than sent email volume. Nameshield pricing was not publicly available in the provided pricing data as of May 15, 2026, so every Nameshield price cell is a pricing status rather than an estimate.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn evidence into fixes
URIports surfaced strong evidence for the visible-from mismatch, forwarded SPF failure, and unknown sender, but the next action still depended on operator skill. Suped turns those findings into guided remediation steps for the domain owner.
Make pricing planning easier
Nameshield did not have public pricing in the provided pricing data, which makes SMB and mid-market planning harder before procurement. Suped publishes starter pricing, including a free plan and paid tiers for defined email and domain volumes.
Package client handoff
Both products needed extra process for MSP-style recurring reports and client-ready ownership notes. Suped is built to help separate senders, domains, alerts, and client workflows so handoff is less manual.
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 Nameshield?
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
