URIports vs.
Report-URI in 2026
URIports
Report-URI
vs.
We tested URIports and Report-URI for 90 days across a corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain. URIports was the cleaner DMARC reporting tool for our mail authentication cases; Report-URI made more sense when DMARC sat beside browser and compliance telemetry. Neither product removed the need for manual sender ownership before policy movement.
URIports
DMARC and domain monitoring for technical teams
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Teams that want DMARC, TLS-RPT, DNS monitoring, and hosted MTA-STS in one account.
In one line
URIports gave us clean DMARC and TLS-RPT drilldowns, and the buying criterion against Suped's product is whether guided fixes are needed after a source is found.
Report-URI
Security reporting with DMARC included
Starts at
From $54.99 / month
Best fit
Security teams that want DMARC reporting beside CSP, browser, compliance, and webhook workflows.
In one line
Report-URI handled the DMARC feed, but its strongest fit was a broader security reporting account rather than a DMARC-only workflow.
Suped
The third option. Hosted SPF, DMARC, and MTA-STS on every plan. Published pricing. Monthly plans. No long contract required.
Learn about Suped
Choose URIports for DMARC work, Report-URI for broader security reporting
Pick URIports if
Best for teams that want technical DMARC monitoring across several domains
The three test domains were live quickly, with separate views for the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain.
Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp were easier to separate by source, IP, and authentication result.
Forwarded mail with SPF failure was explained without treating it like the unauthorized spoof sample.
From $15 / year
Pick Report-URI if
Best for security teams that already want browser and compliance telemetry beside DMARC
DMARC setup worked, but the account also pulled us into CSP, PCI, script, and browser reporting choices.
Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 were readable after enrichment, while the support desk sender needed more manual classification.
API access, webhooks, and stronger alert tiers only became relevant on higher public tiers.
From $54.99 / month
Consider Suped if
Suped's product is the third option when guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership matter
Sending source identification should turn the unknown sender into an owner task, not leave it as a raw host name.
Automated issue detection and alert quality should separate forwarded mail noise from unauthorized spoofing.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows should make client handoff predictable before procurement.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
Report-URI
Suped
DMARC report analysis
How well the product turns aggregate and failure reports into usable DMARC review.
Detailed aggregate and failure drilldowns.
DMARC reports with enriched context.
DMARC reporting with guided review.
Source detection
How clearly known and unknown senders are identified.
Clear for Microsoft 365 and SendGrid, weaker for the support desk.
Clear for major sources, manual for the support desk.
Source identification and owner mapping.
Forward detection
How well forwarded mail is separated from spoofing.
Separated forwarded SPF failure from the spoof sample.
Visible, but explanation needed more work.
Forwarding signals separated from abuse.
Spoof detection
How quickly the unauthorized spoof sample becomes visible.
Unauthorized sample surfaced quickly.
Unauthorized sample surfaced quickly.
Spoof detection with alert context.
Notifications and alerts
Alert routing, noise control, and operational fit.
Email, webhook, Telegram, and noise controls.
Alerting tiers; webhooks on Business.
Alert routing and noise control.
Reporting
Exports, filters, and recurring review usefulness.
Views, filters, JSON, and CSV export.
Exports and retained reports by tier.
Reporting for owners and MSPs.
API
Programmatic access for status or workflow integration.
API access on Stone and higher.
API access on Business and higher.
API support for account workflows.
Multi-tenancy
Account separation for teams, domains, and clients.
Team access with domain permissions.
Team access and RBAC from Professional.
MSP account separation.
SPF flattening
Managed SPF record handling, not only validation.
Validation and optimization only.
Not found in the DMARC test.
Hosted SPF flattening.
Hosted DMARC
Hosted DMARC record management rather than manual DNS ownership.
Manual DNS record ownership.
Manual DNS record ownership.
Hosted DMARC records.
Hosted SPF
Managed SPF hosting for record size and sender changes.
Not supported in our test.
Not supported in our test.
Hosted SPF records.
Hosted MTA-STS
Managed MTA-STS policy publishing.
Pebble Plus and higher.
Not found in the DMARC test.
Hosted MTA-STS.
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist and blacklist monitoring tied to sender risk.
Not found in the DMARC test.
Not found in the DMARC test.
Blocklist and blacklist monitoring.
Automatic issue detection
Whether the product raises concrete problems without manual hunting.
Prioritized report issues.
Security signal alerts by tier.
Automated issue detection.
AI copilot
AI help for interpreting findings and next steps.
Not found in public tiers.
Enterprise AI Insights.
AI assistance for fixes.
DNS monitoring
Ongoing monitoring of DNS records after setup.
Pebble Plus and higher.
Not found in the DMARC test.
DNS monitoring.
Self hostable
Whether customers can operate the product in their own environment.
Hosted SaaS.
Hosted SaaS or dedicated instance option.
Hosted SaaS.
Free trial/free tier
Entry path before a paid commitment.
One-month free trial.
30-day free trial.
Free plan available.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored both products against the same editorial rubric after the 90-day setup. Higher is better in every row, so a 0 means we did not find usable support for that capability in the tested product.
URIports leads the DMARC path; Report-URI leads when DMARC is one signal in a larger security account.
URIports scored higher on DMARC-focused setup because the three-domain flow, report filtering, SPF/DKIM checks, and hosted MTA-STS path stayed close to the mail authentication task. Report-URI scored higher on broad alerting and integrations once Business or higher tiers were in scope, but our DMARC policy movement took more manual interpretation. We gave both a 0 for blocklist or blacklist monitoring because neither surfaced a usable reputation workflow in the DMARC test. Neither product turned the unknown sender into an owner-ready remediation task without our manual notes.
URIports score
62.5/100
Report-URI score
46.5/100
URIports
62.5/100
DMARC enforcement
7.5
Customer support
6.5
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
5.5
Alerting and integrations
7.0
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
5.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
8.5
Time to enforcement
7.0
Report-URI
46.5/100
DMARC enforcement
6.0
Customer support
5.5
Source resolution
5.5
Setup and onboarding
6.5
MSP workflows
5.0
Alerting and integrations
7.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
5.0
Time to enforcement
5.5
Feature set
DMARC depth vs security breadth
URIports has the sharper DMARC kit. Report-URI has broader web security telemetry.
URIports gave us more DMARC-native detail for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, Mailchimp, and the forwarded SPF failure. Report-URI added broader browser security reporting and paid-tier API and webhook access, but the DMARC path needed more manual translation. A practical Suped comparison point is whether guided fixes or automated issue detection turn those findings into owner-ready tasks.
URIports
Microsoft 365 grouped cleanly
Mailchimp filtering was fast
Subdomain DKIM stayed readable
Report-URI
Broad telemetry in one account
API on higher tiers
Spoof sample was visible
URIports grouped Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace cleanly and let us filter SendGrid and Mailchimp by domain, source IP, and authentication result. The SPF pass with a visible From mismatch was easy to isolate, and the DKIM pass on the marketing subdomain stayed connected to the right subdomain instead of being flattened into the corporate domain. The unknown support desk sender still needed manual naming before the report was useful for handoff.
Report-URI handled the same DMARC feed, but its broader product model kept pulling us toward CSP, browser events, and compliance settings. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were readable after enrichment, SendGrid and Mailchimp needed more filtering, and the unknown sender took longer to classify. The unauthorized spoof sample was visible, but moving that finding into a DMARC policy step was less direct.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports was faster for DMARC operators. Report-URI required more context switching.
URIports kept the three-domain onboarding close to the DNS and report work we were doing. Report-URI had a simple DMARC record setup, but the wider security product meant more menus before we reached the specific mail authentication question. The tradeoff is control versus guided interpretation.
URIports
Three domains added quickly
Unknown sender needed naming
Forwarding explanation was clear
Report-URI
DNS step was simple
Unknown sender took longer
Forwarding needed manual notes
In URIports, the primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain were added with predictable DNS steps and visible report status. The unknown support desk sender was not automatically turned into an owner, but the filters made it easy to isolate the host and compare it with SendGrid and Mailchimp. The forwarded mail case was explained clearly enough that we did not confuse SPF failure with spoofing.
Report-URI's DMARC setup was easy to start because it needed a single DNS TXT record, but the account experience was shaped by its broader security reporting system. Finding the unknown sender took longer because DMARC results sat beside other event types and tiered controls. The forwarded SPF failure was visible, but we had to write our own explanation for a non-email administrator.
Support
Hands-on DNS help vs tiered support
URIports gave clearer DMARC handoff cues. Report-URI reserved heavier help for higher plans.
URIports gave us more practical DNS handoff during setup. Report-URI had clearer self-service tier boundaries, but onboarding and SLA language moved toward Enterprise. For smaller DMARC-only buyers, the main question is how much support they need before a reject policy.
URIports
DNS handoff was practical
Enterprise path was clearer
Escalation still plan dependent
Report-URI
Standard support on Starter
Priority support starts higher
Onboarding looked enterprise led
URIports was easier to hand to a DNS administrator because the setup steps stayed close to the exact records we needed for the three domains. The product made domain status, failure reports, and hosted MTA-STS entry points visible enough for a technical owner to continue without a long support thread. Escalation still depended on plan level, and enterprise onboarding was the route for procurement and deeper handoff.
Report-URI's public tiers were clear about standard support, priority support, API, webhooks, and Enterprise onboarding. During our DMARC setup, we did not see as much email-authentication-specific handholding as we wanted for the forwarded SPF failure and unknown sender classification. The enterprise path looked more suitable for SLA-backed onboarding and legal or procurement work.
Suitability
Operator fit vs security team fit
URIports fits DMARC operators. Report-URI fits teams that already manage wider security signals.
URIports is the better fit when the buyer owns domains and needs repeatable DMARC review. Report-URI is the better fit when DMARC is one part of a security reporting program with webhooks, browser signals, and compliance requirements. A practical Suped comparison point is whether MSP workflows and alert quality reduce client handoff work after the report is generated.
URIports
Best for domain operators
Good grouped domain views
MSP handoff needs notes
Report-URI
Best for security teams
RBAC starts above Starter
Client handoff is manual
URIports worked well for an SMB or central IT team that manages several domains and wants domain grouping without a heavy enterprise motion. Account separation was usable through team access and domain permissions, but client-ready handoff notes and recurring reporting still required manual work. For MSPs, the product was workable, but not the cleanest recurring client workflow in our test.
Report-URI made more sense for a security team that already cares about CSP, scripts, compliance reporting, API access, and webhooks. RBAC starts above Starter, and the higher tiers are better suited to enterprise account separation than small DMARC-only buyers. For MSPs, client handoff around DMARC enforcement needed extra notes because the account context was broader than email authentication.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
A technical DMARC workbench for domain owners
After 90 days, URIports felt like a technical DMARC workbench. The primary domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain stayed easy to review separately, and the drilldowns made Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp visible without turning every sender into the same generic source.
The tool was less polished when we needed business ownership. The unknown support desk sender still needed manual classification, and the pricing model required us to think in reports rather than sent messages. The upside was that forwarded mail, the spoof sample, and the subdomain DKIM case stayed readable inside the DMARC workflow.
Where it wins
Fast setup for three domains.
Clear filtering by source and result.
Forwarded SPF failure was understandable.
Hosted MTA-STS is available above entry tiers.
Where it lags
Unknown sender ownership stayed manual.
No hosted SPF in our test.
MSP handoff required extra notes.
G2 had no review base.
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
One-month free trial
Onboarding
Three domains live in one afternoon
G2 rating
0 / 5
Report-URI
A broader security reporting account with DMARC inside it
After 90 days, Report-URI felt like a security reporting platform where DMARC was one useful section. The single DNS record setup was simple, and the spoof sample was easy to spot once reports arrived. The broader account context was helpful for teams already watching CSP, scripts, compliance, and webhooks.
The DMARC-specific work took more translation. SendGrid and Mailchimp were visible, but the support desk sender took longer to classify, and the forwarded SPF failure needed manual notes before a non-email administrator would understand it. Pricing was also harder to map to a DMARC-only buying case because public tiers are built around protected domains and monthly events.
Where it wins
Simple first DMARC record setup.
Broad security telemetry beside DMARC.
API and webhooks on higher tiers.
One public G2 review is positive.
Where it lags
DMARC pricing fit was unclear.
Unknown sender classification took longer.
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS were absent.
Onboarding support leaned enterprise.
Pricing
From $54.99 / month
Free tier
30-day free trial
Onboarding
Simple DNS, broader setup
G2 rating
5.0 / 5
Pricing
URIports
Report-URI
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Public Sand tier covers 3 domains and 10,000 reports per month; it is marked for personal use.
$54.99 / month
Public Starter tier covers 1 protected domain and 100,000 monthly events; DMARC-specific report volume is not split out.
$0 / month
Free plan covers 1 domain and 1,000 monthly emails.
Medium
2 domains, up to 100k emails / month.
$7 / month
Public Pebble tier covers 5 domains and 100,000 reports per month; email volume is listed as unlimited.
$109.99 / month
Public Professional tier covers 2 protected domains and 250,000 monthly events.
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
Public Stone tier covers 25 domains and 500,000 reports per month; fit depends on report count.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Public self-service tiers stop at 5 protected domains, below this segment.
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 accounts use a custom proposal for quotas, retention, procurement, and onboarding.
Not publicly listed as of May 15, 2026
Enterprise uses custom domains, events, retention, SLA, onboarding, and procurement terms.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
Small, Medium, and Large URIports numbers are public list prices. Small and Medium Report-URI numbers are public list prices; Large and Enterprise Report-URI dollar amounts are not estimated because the public tiers do not match the domain count. Enterprise URIports pricing is also not publicly listed. Pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Turn senders into tasks
Both reviewed products surfaced the support desk sender, but ownership still took manual notes. Suped maps sending sources to owner-ready fixes so the next step is clearer.
Separate noisy alerts
The forwarded SPF failure and spoof sample needed different handling. Suped separates forwarding noise, authentication breakage, and abuse alerts so teams route the right issue.
Clean up MSP handoff
URIports had useful domain grouping, while Report-URI fit broader enterprise security work. Suped's MSP workflow is built around account separation, recurring client review, and handoff notes.
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 Report-URI?
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
