URIports vs.
Parseddmarc in 2026
URIports
Parseddmarc
vs.
We tested URIports and Parseddmarc for 90 days across a primary corporate domain, a marketing subdomain, and a parked domain. URIports was faster to operate as a hosted reporting product, while Parseddmarc gave us raw control at the cost of setup, storage, alerting, and handoff work.
URIports
Hosted DMARC and email reporting
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
SMB and lean security teams that want hosted reporting without running infrastructure
In one line
URIports gave us a hosted path to DMARC analysis, DNS monitoring, and hosted MTA-STS; teams comparing Suped's product should treat guided source ownership as a separate buying criterion.
Parseddmarc
Open-source DMARC parser
Starts at
$0 software cost
Best fit
Engineering-led teams that want to self-host parsing, storage, and dashboards
In one line
Parseddmarc gave us dependable parsing and export control, but every dashboard, alert, and owner workflow depended on our own infrastructure.
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 hosted reporting or self-hosted control
Pick URIports if
Best for teams that want managed DMARC reporting with clear DNS steps
Three test domains were live quickly with clear DNS validation.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easier to review through saved report views.
Hosted MTA-STS and DNS monitoring added value above basic DMARC reports.
From $15 / year
Pick Parseddmarc if
Best for teams that want open-source parsing inside their own stack
The $0 software cost fit teams already running OpenSearch or Elasticsearch.
Microsoft Graph, Gmail API, IMAP, and maildir ingestion gave us deployment choice.
The unknown sender workflow was flexible, but classification stayed manual.
Free plan available
Consider Suped if
Choose Suped's product when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Guided fixes should assign senders and next steps without making analysts decode every aggregate row.
Automated issue detection should catch spoof samples, mismatched senders, and forwarding noise before reports pile up.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows should make budget and client handoff clear early.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
Parseddmarc
Suped
DMARC report analysis
How quickly raw aggregate reports become usable investigation data.
Managed analysis
Parser output
Managed analysis
Source detection
How well the product names Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and unknown senders.
Named senders
Manual mapping
Source identification
Forward detection
How well forwarded mail with SPF failure is separated from hostile traffic.
Partial
Manual workflow
Supported
Spoof detection
How clearly the unauthorized spoof sample is exposed for action.
Supported
Parsed events
Supported
Notifications and alerts
How useful alerts are without excessive noise or custom tuning.
Configurable alerts
Webhook or email
Smart alerts
Reporting
How easy it is to produce recurring exports and explain changes to stakeholders.
Reports and exports
JSON and CSV
Reports and exports
API
Whether teams can automate ingestion, retrieval, or downstream workflows.
Reporting API
CLI and outputs
API available
Multi-tenancy
How cleanly separate clients, business units, or domain groups stay apart.
Account separation
Index prefixes
MSP workflows
SPF flattening
Whether the product manages SPF lookup limits instead of only validating syntax.
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Hosted DMARC
Whether DMARC record management is hosted as part of the product workflow.
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Hosted SPF
Whether SPF records are hosted and maintained by the product.
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Hosted MTA-STS
Whether hosted MTA-STS policy management is included.
Paid tier
Not supported
Supported
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) monitoring and reputation checks.
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
Automatic issue detection
Whether problems are grouped into likely causes without manual query work.
Prioritized reports
Manual rules
Supported
AI copilot
Whether the product includes an assistant for explaining DMARC issues and next steps.
Not supported
Not supported
Supported
DNS monitoring
Whether the product checks DNS changes that affect authentication.
Paid tier
Not supported
Supported
Self hostable
Whether the product can run in infrastructure controlled by the buyer.
Managed only
Self hostable
Managed service
Free trial/free tier
Whether teams can start without paying for a production subscription.
Free trial
Free software
Free plan
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored each product against the same editorial rubric after the 90-day test. Higher is better in every row, and unsupported functions receive 0.0 instead of partial credit.
URIports scores higher on managed operation, while Parseddmarc scores better where self-hosted control matters.
URIports scored higher where hosted setup, DNS validation, alerts, and policy planning reduced our operating work. Parseddmarc scored higher where control mattered, especially self-hosted ingestion and custom destinations, but it gave us no hosted SPF, hosted MTA-STS, blocklist or blacklist monitoring, or commercial support path in the public materials. Both products exposed the spoof sample and the SPF mismatch, but URIports reached an enforcement plan faster because the interface connected failures to domain-level views.
URIports score
62/100
Parseddmarc score
40.5/100
URIports
62/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
6.0
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
4.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
7.5
Parseddmarc
40.5/100
DMARC enforcement
5.0
Customer support
2.0
Source resolution
5.5
Setup and onboarding
4.5
MSP workflows
6.0
Alerting and integrations
5.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
7.0
Time to enforcement
5.0
Feature set
Managed breadth vs parser control
URIports covers more managed workflow. Parseddmarc gives more operator control.
URIports had the broader managed workflow in our test, especially around hosted reporting, DNS checks, and MTA-STS. Parseddmarc gave us stronger control over where parsed data went, but the team had to build more of the operating layer. If Suped's product is also on the shortlist, treat guided fixes and automated issue detection as buying criteria, because those decide whether sender changes get handled before they block policy movement.
URIports
Microsoft 365 grouped cleanly
Mailchimp mismatch stayed visible
Unknown sender needed ownership
Parseddmarc
Google Workspace parsed cleanly
SendGrid stayed query driven
Subdomain DKIM detail exposed
URIports handled Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace as recognizable senders after DNS was in place, and the SendGrid and Mailchimp streams were easier to compare because the reports sat behind saved views. The SPF pass with visible from mismatch showed the right failure context, but the unknown sender still needed owner classification before policy movement felt safe.
Parseddmarc parsed the Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp reports cleanly once the mailbox and OpenSearch pipeline were tuned. It gave us raw fields for the DKIM pass on a subdomain and the forwarded mail SPF failure, but sender naming and next steps depended on our own dashboards and queries.
User experience
Guided console vs operator console
URIports is easier to read. Parseddmarc is easier to bend.
URIports gave us a clearer path for adding domains, checking records, and reviewing the first week of aggregate data. Parseddmarc felt better when we wanted to decide every storage, retention, and output choice ourselves, but that control made routine investigation slower.
URIports
Three domains onboarded quickly
Unknown sender surfaced clearly
Forward failure needed context
Parseddmarc
Setup needed infrastructure choices
Unknown sender required queries
Forwarding explanation was manual
URIports onboarded the primary corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain with direct DNS prompts and visible validation status. The unknown sender was easy to find in reports, while the forwarded mail SPF failure took a second pass because the product showed the failure but did not fully explain the forwarding context.
Parseddmarc required mailbox access, parser configuration, storage setup, and dashboard work before the test domains became readable. Once running, it exposed the unknown sender and the forwarded SPF failure in the parsed data, but explaining those cases to a domain owner required our own saved queries and notes.
Support
Hosted help vs self-managed support
URIports gives a clearer support path. Parseddmarc relies on in-house operators.
URIports had a more obvious path for setup questions, DNS handoff, and enterprise onboarding. Parseddmarc had useful documentation, but escalation, uptime, and operational support stayed with the team running it.
URIports
DNS handoff was clearer
Enterprise path was documented
Escalation depends on plan
Parseddmarc
Docs covered installation
No commercial SLA found
Escalation stayed self managed
During setup, URIports gave us cleaner DNS handoff language for the DMARC, reporting, and MTA-STS steps. The public plan structure made basic support expectations easier to understand, while deeper onboarding and procurement support were tied to higher tiers or enterprise options.
Parseddmarc support expectations were different because it is open-source software. The installation and usage docs helped us connect Microsoft Graph, Gmail API, and IMAP, but DNS handoff, incident escalation, and enterprise onboarding required an internal owner or a separate support arrangement.
Suitability
SMB fit vs operator fit
URIports fits teams that want hosted reporting. Parseddmarc fits teams that want to own the stack.
URIports fits SMB and lean enterprise teams that want hosted reporting without owning the parser stack. Parseddmarc fits operators and MSPs with engineering time, but alert quality, client grouping, recurring reports, and handoff notes must be built. If Suped's product is in the evaluation, score MSP workflow depth and alert quality alongside parser output.
URIports
SMB teams get structure
Enterprise tiers add controls
MSP handoff felt limited
Parseddmarc
Operators control every layer
Index prefixes separate clients
Handoff needs custom reports
URIports kept the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain understandable for an SMB-style workflow, and the domain limits on public tiers made capacity planning straightforward. For MSP use, account separation and recurring client handoff felt lighter than we wanted because owner notes and remediation status still lived outside the product.
Parseddmarc fit the operator profile better. Its index-prefix support helped us separate clients or domain groups, but MSP reporting, recurring summaries, escalation notes, and non-technical client handoff had to be built around the parser.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
Best for hosted DMARC reporting with useful adjacent checks
After 90 days, URIports felt like the safer hosted choice for a lean team that wants one place to read DMARC, TLS, and DNS signals. Our primary corporate domain and marketing subdomain were easy to keep separate, and the parked domain made unauthorized traffic stand out quickly.
The weak point was ownership workflow. The unknown sender and forwarded SPF failure were visible, but deciding who owned the fix still took notes outside the product, especially when SendGrid and Mailchimp patterns changed during the test.
Where it wins
Fast three-domain setup
Clear report filtering
Public starter pricing
Hosted MTA-STS on paid tiers
Where it lags
No self-hosted deployment
No blocklist (blacklist) monitoring found
Owner handoff needed outside notes
Higher support depends on tier
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month free trial
Onboarding
Hosted DNS setup
G2 rating
0 / 5
Parseddmarc
Best for engineering-led teams that want DMARC data inside their own stack
After 90 days, Parseddmarc felt like a dependable parsing layer, not a managed DMARC program. It handled compressed reports and the Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and support desk streams once ingestion was tuned.
The tradeoff was operating burden. The spoof sample, unknown sender, and forwarded SPF failure were present in the data, but we had to build the dashboards, alert rules, retention policy, and owner handoff ourselves.
Where it wins
$0 software cost
Self-hosted control
Flexible output destinations
Multi-tenant index prefixes
Where it lags
Infrastructure required before value
No hosted policy guidance
No published support tiers
Alerts need custom rules
Pricing
$0 software cost
Free tier
Open-source self-hosted
Onboarding
Infrastructure first
G2 rating
0 / 5
Pricing
URIports
Parseddmarc
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand is public and covers 3 domains plus 10,000 reports, but it is marked for personal use.
$0 software cost
No paid tier is required, but hosting, storage, backups, and staff time are separate.
$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, with email volume listed as unlimited.
$0 software cost
Capacity depends on mailbox size, workers, search storage, and retention choices.
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; high report fan-out can require Mountain.
$0 software cost
The software has no report cap, but infrastructure sizing becomes the real constraint.
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; procurement support moves to custom Enterprise.
$0 software cost
No official hosted enterprise plan or published commercial SLA was found.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports prices are public list prices and use report quotas, not email-send quotas. Segment fit is estimated from monthly report quotas because actual report volume depends on receivers, sending sources, and report compression. Parseddmarc rows use a $0 software-cost estimate because no paid tiers were published; infrastructure and staff costs are not included. Pricing checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Guided source ownership
URIports surfaced the unknown sender but still left owner assignment as a manual review step; Parseddmarc required us to create that classification workflow. Suped's product is built around identifying sending sources and turning them into owner tasks.
Cleaner alert routing
URIports gave usable notifications, but the forwarded SPF failure and visible from mismatch still needed rule tuning. Parseddmarc pushed alert design into our own jobs and dashboards, while Suped's product focuses alerts on authentication changes, spoof attempts, and sources that block enforcement.
MSP handoff
URIports had domain separation but limited client handoff notes in our test; Parseddmarc index prefixes separated clients but recurring reporting needed custom work. Suped's MSP workflow covers recurring reporting and client-ready exports, with published per-domain pricing.
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 Parseddmarc?
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
