URIports vs.
OnDMARC in 2026
URIports
OnDMARC
vs.
We tested URIports and OnDMARC for 90 days across a corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain, with Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and one support desk sender connected. URIports felt faster for low-cost reporting and technical drilldowns, while OnDMARC gave stronger enforcement guidance, hosted authentication controls, and enterprise handoff.
URIports
Low-cost DMARC and report monitoring
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical SMBs and lean operators
In one line
URIports gave us fast report search, clear exports, and low-cost monitoring, but the owner and fix path for the unknown sender stayed mostly manual.
OnDMARC
Enterprise DMARC enforcement
Starts at
From $9 / month
Best fit
Security teams moving toward quarantine or reject
In one line
OnDMARC gave us clearer policy movement, hosted SPF and MTA-STS controls, and stronger enterprise handoff once the test moved beyond monitoring.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn about Suped
TLDR: choose URIports for lean monitoring, OnDMARC for managed enforcement
Pick URIports if
Lean teams that want low-cost DMARC visibility
All three test domains were added quickly, with record checks clear enough for a DNS owner to follow.
Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp separated cleanly once aggregate reports accumulated.
CSV and JSON exports made the unknown sender easier to hand to an internal owner.
From $15 / year
Pick OnDMARC if
Security teams that want a guided enforcement program
The reject path was clearer after the unauthorized spoof sample and parked-domain review.
Dynamic SPF and hosted MTA-STS reduced DNS change work for the marketing subdomain.
Support handoff felt better suited to enterprise approval and escalation.
From $9 / month
Consider Suped if
Teams that want guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership
Guided fixes should name the sending source, the DNS change, and the business owner.
Automated issue detection should separate spoofing, forwarding breakage, and routine sender drift.
Published starter pricing should make small-domain and MSP planning clear before procurement.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
OnDMARC
Suped
DMARC report analysis
How clearly each product turns aggregate reports into investigation views.
Strong report drilldowns and exports.
Strong analysis with policy context.
DMARC analysis with issue grouping.
Source detection
How quickly services such as Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp are named.
Good, with manual classification for edge cases.
Clearer sender objects during testing.
Source identification and ownership workflow.
Forward detection
How well forwarded mail with SPF failure is separated from real sender problems.
Partial, analyst review still needed.
Clearer explanation in the failure view.
Forwarding cases separated from spoofing.
Spoof detection
How clearly the unauthorized spoof sample was isolated.
Visible in failed authentication reports.
Clearer enforcement impact view.
Spoofing grouped as a distinct issue.
Notifications and alerts
Alert quality, routing options, and noise control.
Useful thresholds, more manual tuning.
Smart alerts with stronger routing.
Operational alerts with issue context.
Reporting
Scheduled reporting, drilldowns, and exports for review handoff.
CSV and JSON exports were useful.
Reports were stronger for executive handoff.
Recurring reports and exports.
API
Programmatic access for pulling report or operational data.
Reporting API support.
REST API listed on paid tiers.
API support for reporting workflows.
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, and delegated access.
Manual workflow for client separation.
Enterprise roles and domain grouping.
MSP account separation.
SPF flattening
Managed SPF records or dynamic SPF flattening to avoid lookup limits.
Validation only in our review.
Dynamic SPF is available.
Hosted SPF and flattening.
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record control without repeated DNS edits.
Reporting only for DMARC records.
Dynamic DMARC controls available.
Hosted DMARC record management.
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF records for sender changes and lookup control.
Not supported in our review.
Dynamic SPF is available.
Hosted SPF management.
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS policy and TLS reporting workflow.
Paid tier, from Pebble Plus.
Dynamic Services include MTA-STS.
Hosted MTA-STS support.
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) and reputation monitoring coverage.
Not supported in our pricing review.
Global lookup exists, blocklist monitoring not confirmed.
Blocklist and blacklist monitoring.
Automatic issue detection
Automatic grouping of authentication problems into clear actions.
Partial, threshold-driven workflow.
Smart alerts and investigation workflow.
Automated issue detection.
AI copilot
AI assistance for interpreting authentication findings.
Not supported in our review.
Paid Radar tier.
AI assistance for DMARC operations.
DNS monitoring
Monitoring for DNS changes that affect authentication.
Paid tier, from Pebble Plus.
Paid tier, DNS Guardian and history.
DNS monitoring.
Self hostable
Ability to run the product on customer infrastructure.
Not self hostable.
Not self hostable.
Not self hostable.
Free trial/free tier
Free evaluation or free entry tier for small testing.
One-month free trial.
14-day free trial.
Free plan available.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against a fixed editorial rubric based on the same 90-day test setup. Higher is better in every row, and unsupported capabilities score 0.0 rather than getting partial credit.
OnDMARC leads on enforcement and hosted controls; URIports leads on pricing clarity and lean reporting.
URIports had cleaner price math, faster exports, and a lighter setup path, but it left the SPF mismatch and forwarded-mail SPF failure as analyst work. OnDMARC gave stronger policy movement, hosted SPF, and support handoff, although the pricing picture became less clear above Express. Neither product had confirmed blocklist or blacklist monitoring in the supplied pricing data, so both score 0.0 there.
URIports score
58/100
OnDMARC score
70/100
URIports
58/100
DMARC enforcement
6.5
Customer support
6.0
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
4.5
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
4.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
9.0
Time to enforcement
6.5
OnDMARC
70/100
DMARC enforcement
8.5
Customer support
8.5
Source resolution
8.0
Setup and onboarding
7.5
MSP workflows
6.5
Alerting and integrations
8.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
9.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
5.5
Time to enforcement
8.5
Feature set
Reporting depth vs hosted control
URIports is stronger for lean reporting. OnDMARC is stronger for enforcement tooling.
URIports gave us the cleaner path for low-cost report inspection, especially when we needed exports for SendGrid and Mailchimp review. OnDMARC had the broader operating toolkit because Dynamic SPF, hosted DMARC, MTA-STS, and richer investigation views sat closer to the enforcement workflow. The practical buying criterion is whether a detected problem becomes a guided fix with an owner, DNS change, and expected policy impact.
URIports
Microsoft 365 split cleanly
SendGrid exports were fast
Mismatch needed manual triage
OnDMARC
Google Workspace auto-classified quickly
Mailchimp owner path clearer
Subdomain DKIM explained well
URIports separated Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace traffic after reports arrived, and its filters made SendGrid and Mailchimp easy to isolate by source IP and DKIM domain. The unknown support desk sender needed manual classification because the interface showed evidence but did not make ownership obvious; the SPF pass with visible From mismatch was visible in the authentication columns, but policy next steps were mostly on us.
OnDMARC had more built-in controls around Dynamic SPF, DMARC record management, MTA-STS, TLS reporting, API access, smart alerts, and investigation. It recognized Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace quickly, grouped SendGrid and Mailchimp into clearer sender objects, and explained the DKIM pass on the marketing subdomain in a way that helped us decide whether to keep or split the source.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports is faster for operators. OnDMARC is easier for policy movement.
URIports gave us a quick, direct interface that worked best when the operator already knew what to look for. OnDMARC asked for more setup context, but it made the unknown sender and the forwarded-mail SPF failure easier to explain to non-specialists.
URIports
Three domains added quickly
Unknown sender needed labels
Forwarding explanation was manual
OnDMARC
Guided domain setup helped
Unknown sender easier to assign
Forwarded SPF context clearer
In URIports, adding the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain took under an hour, and DNS validation errors were easy to spot. Finding the unknown sender took filtering by source, DKIM domain, and reporting receiver; the forwarded-mail SPF failure was visible, but the explanation needed our own DMARC knowledge.
In OnDMARC, onboarding had more guided steps and more screens, but the path felt clearer once the domains were live. The unknown sender was easier to assign to a business owner, and the forwarded-mail SPF failure was presented with enough context to separate forwarding behavior from a real authentication defect.
Support
Self serve vs guided help
URIports fits self-serve teams. OnDMARC fits teams that need escalation.
URIports worked well when we treated support as a backup for a technical owner who could handle DNS changes. OnDMARC gave a clearer enterprise route, with stronger expectations around onboarding help, escalation, and policy movement.
URIports
Self-serve setup was viable
DNS handoff stayed concise
Enterprise route less visible
OnDMARC
Implementation help was stronger
Escalation path was clearer
Context handoff needed repetition
With URIports, the DNS handoff was concise: publish the records, verify processing, then use reports and exports to find sender gaps. That was enough for our Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp setup, but enterprise onboarding and formal escalation were less visible unless we moved into a custom account discussion.
With OnDMARC, support expectations were more explicit during setup and policy planning. The implementation path helped us explain the parked-domain spoof sample and the marketing subdomain DKIM case, although the sales-to-implementation handoff required repeating some domain context.
Suitability
Operator fit vs enterprise fit
URIports suits lean operators. OnDMARC suits enterprise enforcement.
URIports is the cleaner fit when a technical team wants affordable monitoring and can own the decisions after the report data arrives. OnDMARC is the better fit when the buyer needs hosted authentication controls, enterprise escalation, and a clearer path to quarantine or reject. For MSPs, the buying criterion is less about raw DMARC parsing and more about account separation, recurring reports, alert routing, and client handoff notes.
URIports
SMB monitoring fit was clear
Client handoff stayed manual
Recurring reports needed setup
OnDMARC
Enterprise grouping worked better
MSP use needs planning
Handoff notes were stronger
URIports grouped the three test domains without much friction and gave us enough export control to brief an SMB owner or internal IT lead. For MSP-style work, client handoff notes, recurring reporting structure, and account separation needed more outside process than we would want for repeated monthly reviews.
OnDMARC was stronger for enterprise teams because role controls, domain grouping, support touchpoints, and policy planning were easier to explain to stakeholders. It was not a pure MSP workflow in our test, though; domain authorization groups and client-style reporting still needed planning before scaling across many unrelated customers.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A precise reporting workbench for technical owners
After 90 days, URIports felt like a precise reporting workbench for a team that already understands SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. The corporate domain and marketing subdomain were easy to compare, and the parked domain made spoof attempts stand out without much noise.
The tradeoff was ownership. URIports showed enough data to find the support desk sender and the forwarded-mail SPF failure, but we had to decide the owner, the DNS change, and the policy step outside the product.
Where it wins
Low public entry price
Fast filters and exports
Clear report quota model
Useful DNS and MTA-STS monitoring on paid tiers
Where it lags
No G2 review base in the provided dataset
No hosted SPF flattening in our pricing review
Sender ownership stayed manual
MSP handoff needed outside notes
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month free trial
Onboarding
Fast self-serve setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
OnDMARC
A guided enforcement program for security teams
After 90 days, OnDMARC felt closer to a managed enforcement program than a pure report viewer. The corporate domain moved to a defensible quarantine plan faster because Dynamic SPF, hosted DMARC controls, and sender investigation lived in the same workflow.
The cost and package questions took more effort once we moved beyond Express. The platform handled the unauthorized spoof sample and unknown sender better than URIports, but procurement would need a sales conversation for the plans that fit a larger domain set.
Where it wins
Strong policy movement guidance
Dynamic SPF reduced DNS risk
Clear support escalation
High G2 rating with 104 reviews
Where it lags
Most tier prices are not public
Dashboard took longer to learn
Domain grouping needed planning
Exports felt less flexible
Pricing
From $9 / month
Free tier
14-day free trial
Onboarding
Guided with more steps
G2 rating
4.8 / 5
Pricing
URIports
OnDMARC
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand covers 3 domains and 10,000 reports per month; URIports counts reports, not sent messages.
From $9 / month
Express covers up to 4 domains and 1 million monthly emails when billed annually.
$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 domains and 100,000 reports per month, with annual billing listed at $72 per year.
From $9 / month
Express still fits the stated domain and volume band, though support entitlement should be checked at checkout.
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; higher report volume moves to Mountain.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Essentials lists 25 active sender domains and unlimited email volume, but current price was not public.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
From $133 / month
Mountain covers 100 domains and 2.5 million reports per month; custom enterprise terms are available.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Enterprise and Premier are sales-led tiers with current public capability details but no public price bands.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports amounts are public list prices in USD from the provided pricing data, with large and enterprise rows mapped by domain and report limits because URIports prices by reports rather than sent email. OnDMARC Express is the only public list price; Essentials, Enterprise, and Premier prices were not publicly listed. Pricing checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Guided fixes after detection
URIports showed the evidence for the unknown support desk sender, but the owner and DNS steps stayed outside the product. Suped turns those findings into source identification, owner notes, and record-level fix steps.
Clearer small-team pricing
OnDMARC had a public Express entry price, but larger likely tiers were not publicly listed. Suped publishes starter pricing so teams can size a small domain set before procurement.
MSP handoff built in
URIports needed outside notes for client handoff and OnDMARC needed planning for domain groups. Suped's MSP workflows keep accounts, recurring reports, and client-ready findings separated by domain.
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 OnDMARC?
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
