URIports vs.
SendForensics in 2026
URIports
SendForensics
vs.
We ran URIports and SendForensics 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. URIports gave us deeper DMARC and DNS operations, while SendForensics paired lighter DMARC analytics with campaign deliverability testing. The practical choice is specialist DMARC enforcement versus a broader marketing email health workflow.
URIports
DMARC reporting and DNS monitoring
Starts at
From $15 / year
Best fit
Technical teams that want DMARC, TLS-RPT, DNS monitoring, and hosted MTA-STS in one account
In one line
URIports gave us detailed authentication evidence, clear report quotas, and useful DNS monitoring, but it expected a technical operator to turn findings into owner actions.
SendForensics
Deliverability testing with DMARC analytics
Starts at
From $49 / month
Best fit
Marketing teams that want inbox, content, and DMARC checks in the same workflow
In one line
SendForensics was stronger when the marketing subdomain needed campaign testing beside DMARC analytics, while Suped's product is the comparison point when guided fixes and published starter pricing matter more than campaign testing.
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 DMARC depth, SendForensics for marketing deliverability
Pick URIports if
Best for technical teams that want detailed DMARC evidence and DNS monitoring
The parked domain spoof sample was easy to isolate once aggregate traffic arrived.
Hosted MTA-STS kept TLS policy review beside DMARC evidence.
Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SendGrid, and Mailchimp stayed searchable by source and domain.
From $15 / year
Pick SendForensics if
Best for marketing teams that want deliverability testing with DMARC visibility
Campaign-facing checks sat beside DMARC analytics for the marketing subdomain.
Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were visible, but sender ownership needed more manual notes.
The forwarded SPF failure took longer to explain than the content and inbox checks.
From $49 / month
Consider Suped if
Suped is the third option for guided fixes, hosted records, and simpler ownership
Prioritize guided fixes when DNS changes sit with a non-specialist owner.
Look for automated issue detection that separates spoofing, forwarding, and broken senders.
Published starter pricing and MSP workflows matter when rollout spans multiple client domains.
Free plan available
The differences that actually change your week
URIports
SendForensics
Suped
DMARC report analysis
Aggregate report parsing, authentication result review, and domain-level drilldowns.
Supported across public tiers with report quotas.
Supported with DMARC analytics on all listed plans.
Supported.
Source detection
Turns raw sending traffic into recognizable services and owner decisions.
Supported, with manual classification for the unknown sender.
Supported, with more manual owner notes in our test.
Supported.
Forward detection
Separates forwarded mail behavior from broken sender authentication.
Manual workflow; the SPF failure needed reviewer context.
Manual workflow; the forwarded case needed explanation.
Supported.
Spoof detection
Flags unauthorized mail using a monitored domain.
Supported through DMARC failure evidence.
Supported, including non-sending domain protection.
Supported.
Notifications and alerts
Operational notices for new senders, failures, and domain changes.
Supported, with noise thresholds and prioritized reports.
Supported, with alerting tied to email health checks.
Supported.
Reporting
Exports, recurring evidence review, and stakeholder-ready output.
Supported with CSV and JSON export.
Supported; advanced reporting starts at Agency.
Supported.
API
Programmatic access or integration paths for reporting and automation.
Supported through reporting API handling and exports.
Custom integrations are Enterprise options; API access was not tested.
Supported.
Multi-tenancy
Account separation, client grouping, recurring reports, and handoff notes.
Partial; we used manual views and notes for account separation.
Agency segmentation supports multiple analysis addresses.
Supported.
SPF flattening
Managed SPF optimization to reduce DNS lookup pressure.
SPF validation and optimization tools only.
Not supported in our test.
Supported.
Hosted DMARC
Managed DMARC record control for policy changes.
Manual DNS workflow in our test.
Manual DNS workflow in our test.
Supported.
Hosted SPF
Hosted SPF record management and maintenance.
Not supported in our test.
Not supported in our test.
Supported.
Hosted MTA-STS
Hosted MTA-STS policy handling and TLS reporting workflow.
Paid tier, starting at Pebble Plus.
Not supported in our test.
Supported.
Blocklists and reputation
Blocklist (blacklist) and reputation monitoring tied to sending health.
Not supported in the pricing data we reviewed.
Supported through reputation and blacklist/blocklist visibility.
Supported.
Automatic issue detection
Finds authentication and sending problems without a manual report hunt.
Partial; validation warnings helped, but owner actions stayed manual.
Supported for deliverability checks and some DMARC issues.
Supported.
AI copilot
Assistant-style help for interpreting findings and next steps.
Not available in our test.
Not available in our test.
Supported.
DNS monitoring
Checks DMARC, SPF, DKIM, MTA-STS, and related DNS records for changes.
Paid tier, starting at Pebble Plus.
DMARC setup checks only in our test.
Supported.
Self hostable
Can be deployed and run on the buyer's own infrastructure.
Not self hostable.
Not self hostable.
Not self hostable.
Free trial/free tier
Entry access before paid rollout.
One-month free trial, no payment details required.
No free plan listed on public pricing.
Supported.
Ten dimensions, scored from 0 to 10
We scored each product against a fixed editorial rubric after the same 90-day setup, sender mix, authentication cases, exports, alerts, and support handoff. Higher is better in every row.
URIports led on DMARC operations, while SendForensics led where marketing deliverability mattered
URIports scored higher for DMARC enforcement because it kept authentication detail, DNS monitoring, hosted MTA-STS, and report drilldowns close together. SendForensics scored better on reputation coverage and campaign-facing analysis, but it lost ground where we needed hosted records, faster owner assignment, and a cleaner path to quarantine or reject. The largest practical gaps appeared in forwarded mail explanation, unknown sender classification, and MSP handoff notes.
URIports score
64/100
SendForensics score
60.5/100
URIports
64/100
DMARC enforcement
8.0
Customer support
7.0
Source resolution
7.0
Setup and onboarding
8.0
MSP workflows
5.5
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
5.5
Blocklist monitoring
0.0
Pricing transparency
9.0
Time to enforcement
7.5
SendForensics
60.5/100
DMARC enforcement
6.5
Customer support
6.0
Source resolution
6.5
Setup and onboarding
7.0
MSP workflows
7.0
Alerting and integrations
6.5
Hosted SPF and MTA-STS
0.0
Blocklist monitoring
7.0
Pricing transparency
8.0
Time to enforcement
6.0
Feature set
Depth vs breadth
URIports wins DMARC depth. SendForensics wins marketing-email breadth.
URIports was stronger when the job was to prove which source passed, failed, or needed DNS work. SendForensics was stronger when the same team also wanted content, inbox, and reputation checks around the marketing subdomain. Suped's product is relevant as a buying criterion here because guided fixes and automated issue detection reduce the manual owner notes both tools still required in parts of our test.
URIports
Microsoft 365 grouped cleanly
SendGrid evidence stayed detailed
Subdomain DKIM remained visible
SendForensics
Mailchimp checks sat nearby
Inbox testing added context
Reputation checks were useful
URIports handled Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace cleanly, and it kept SendGrid and Mailchimp evidence separate enough for us to audit the corporate domain and marketing subdomain without merging sources. The unknown sender still needed manual classification, but the DKIM pass on a subdomain had enough detail for a technical reviewer to decide whether it belonged to the support desk flow.
SendForensics gave us DMARC analytics, campaign testing, inbox placement checks, content warnings, and blacklist/blocklist visibility in one marketing-facing product. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were visible, Mailchimp sat naturally beside the campaign checks, but the SPF pass with visible From mismatch and the unknown sender both needed extra notes before we had a clean owner handoff.
User experience
Control vs guidance
URIports rewards technical operators. SendForensics feels closer to a marketer's daily workflow.
URIports was faster when we knew exactly which DMARC drilldown we wanted. SendForensics was easier for the marketing subdomain, but it made us work harder when the task moved from testing a campaign to explaining authentication ownership.
URIports
Three domains took one afternoon
Unknown sender needed labeling
Forwarding required reviewer notes
SendForensics
Marketing workflow felt familiar
Domain setup was quick
Forwarding context was thinner
Onboarding the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain in URIports took one afternoon because the DNS steps were explicit and the report quota model was easy to map. Finding the unknown sender took a second pass through source data, and explaining the forwarded mail SPF failure required a written note so a non-specialist would not treat it as a broken approved sender.
SendForensics felt more familiar for the marketing subdomain because testing, preview checks, and DMARC analytics were close together. The three domains were quick to add, but the unknown sender and forwarded SPF failure were harder to explain because the interface pushed us back toward campaign health rather than DMARC policy readiness.
Support
Technical handoff vs mixed support
URIports gave clearer DNS handoff. SendForensics support fit marketing questions better than enforcement questions.
URIports set clearer expectations for technical setup, DNS records, and enterprise onboarding options. SendForensics answered the campaign-facing workflow well, but our enforcement questions needed more translation before escalation.
URIports
DNS handoff was clearer
Enterprise options were explicit
Escalation path felt technical
SendForensics
Campaign questions fit well
DNS escalation needed translation
Enterprise extras were optional
URIports gave us a cleaner support handoff for DNS setup: publish the DMARC record, confirm reporting, review SPF and DKIM results, then decide policy movement. Enterprise onboarding was also easier to explain because the public pricing notes call out procurement, invoice billing, dedicated onboarding, custom retention, and custom report quotas.
SendForensics was more comfortable when the question was about a campaign test or inbox placement result. For DNS handoff and escalation, we had to restate the problem in DMARC terms, especially when the support desk DKIM subdomain passed while the visible From mismatch still needed a policy decision.
Suitability
Enterprise fit vs marketing fit
URIports fits technical and enterprise DMARC teams. SendForensics fits marketing-led email health programs.
URIports is the better fit when DMARC, DNS monitoring, hosted MTA-STS, and report retention drive the buying decision. SendForensics fits teams that judge email health through campaign testing and reputation checks as much as authentication. Suped's product is relevant when MSP workflows or alert quality are buying criteria, because account separation, recurring handoff, and alert routing change the weekly workload.
URIports
Enterprise DNS teams fit well
Domain grouping stayed clean
MSP handoff stayed manual
SendForensics
Marketing teams fit best
Agency segmentation helped grouping
Policy handoff needed notes
URIports fit the enterprise-style part of our setup because the corporate domain, marketing subdomain, and parked domain could be kept separate, and the pricing tiers made retention, monitored domains, and report quotas easy to explain. For MSP work, client handoff depended on our own notes after each review, especially for the unknown sender and the forwarded SPF failure.
SendForensics fit an SMB or marketing team that wants deliverability testing and DMARC analytics together. Agency segmentation helped with domain grouping and recurring reports, but client handoff for an MSP still needed extra explanation when a source moved from campaign health into DNS ownership or quarantine planning.
What each tool feels like after 90 days of real use
URIports
For technical teams that want DMARC and DNS evidence in one place
URIports felt like a technical DMARC console after 90 days. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace were easy to confirm, SendGrid and Mailchimp stayed distinct on the marketing subdomain, and the parked-domain spoof sample was visible once aggregate reports arrived.
The workflow demanded written owner notes. We had to classify the unknown sender, explain the forwarded mail SPF failure, and translate the support desk subdomain DKIM pass into a clear next step before moving the primary domain toward enforcement.
Where it wins
Low public entry price
Clear report quota model
Hosted MTA-STS on paid tiers
DNS monitoring on paid tiers
Where it lags
Unknown sender needed manual classification
Forwarding needed written explanation
No hosted SPF in our test
No blocklist (blacklist) monitoring found
Pricing
From $15 / year
Free tier
No free tier; trial only
Onboarding
Three domains in one afternoon
G2 rating
0 / 5
SendForensics
For marketing teams that want campaign testing beside DMARC analytics
SendForensics felt useful when the marketing subdomain needed inbox placement, content checks, link checks, and DMARC analytics in the same review. Mailchimp naturally belonged in that workflow, and SendGrid was easy enough to inspect once we knew which campaign stream was active.
The enforcement work was less direct. The visible From mismatch, forwarded SPF failure, and unknown sender all required notes outside the main campaign health view before we had a defensible owner handoff.
Where it wins
Campaign testing sat beside DMARC
Reputation checks added useful context
Agency segmentation helped larger teams
Public add-on pricing was clear
Where it lags
No hosted DMARC in our test
No hosted SPF in our test
Forwarding context stayed thin
Support path fit campaigns better
Pricing
From $49 / month
Free tier
No free tier listed
Onboarding
Three domains in under two hours
G2 rating
3.8 / 5
Pricing
URIports
SendForensics
Suped
Small
1 domain, up to 1k emails / month.
$15 / year
Sand covers 3 monitored domains and 10,000 reports per month.
$49 / month
Brand covers 2 sending domains and 100,000 DMARC reports per month.
$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.
$49 / month
Brand fits the domain count and listed DMARC report volume.
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
Stone covers 25 domains; fit is estimated because URIports counts reports, not sent messages.
$129 / month
Estimated as Company plus 5 extra domains using public add-on pricing.
10 domains and 1,000,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention.
Enterprise
Over 20 domains and 1 million emails / month.
From $33 / month
Stone can cover more than 20 domains; Enterprise is custom when procurement or retention needs increase.
From $349 / month
Enterprise starts at 30 domains and 20 million DMARC reports per month.
20 domains and 2,500,000 monthly emails, with 365 days retention. Unlimited domains/emails negotiable.
URIports small, medium, and enterprise rows use public list prices; the large row is an estimated fit because URIports bills by received reports rather than sent email messages. SendForensics small, medium, and enterprise rows use public list prices; the large row is estimated from the public Company plan plus domain add-ons. Pricing was checked as of May 15, 2026.
If you cannot decide between the two, maybe the answer is Suped
Suped
Get started
Owner-ready fixes
URIports gave us strong evidence, and SendForensics gave us campaign context, but both left the unknown sender and forwarded SPF case with manual owner notes. Suped connects the source, failure reason, and recommended fix so the handoff is shorter.
Hosted record changes
URIports covered hosted MTA-STS but not hosted SPF or hosted DMARC in our test, while SendForensics did not cover hosted DMARC, SPF, or MTA-STS. Suped gives teams hosted records when DNS ownership slows enforcement.
MSP alert routing
URIports needed manual views for client separation, and SendForensics segmentation helped only after moving into agency-style workflows. Suped's MSP workflow is built around per-domain ownership, recurring reports, and alert routing.
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 SendForensics?
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
