Mimecast Advanced Email Security Reviews

We use this solution for email threat protection and archiving. 

We have 99-year retention and that has enabled us to get down to a 60-day retention policy on our emails, so that's pretty cool. In the current environment that the world is in, everyone is trying to hack everyone else, so Project+ definitely helps a lot there.

The lock in is very, very tight. It is impossible to move out of Mimecast to a different product, like Proofpoint or 365 ATP, and keep the chain of custody for every email that I've archived.

The reaction time between a new threat being identified and Mimecast picking it up needs to be narrowed a bit. That gap needs to close. But other than that, I think it's good.

I have been working with this solution for just under three months.

The solution is very stable. It's very fast compared to native exchange online archiving. 

The solution is scalable. We actually have about 14,000 users on it at the moment and predict that to go up quite a bit in the near future. We have about 20 employees working as the core admins.

I worked with native Microsoft ATP before this solution. 

I'm always going to say the price needs to be lower, but it's reasonable. We pay annually for licensing, support, and training. It's about eight and a half million RENs. 

In terms of the actual email protection part, if we need to release emails, that is possible for the end user with certain caveats, and it works very well.

My advice to those considering this product would be to go for it. It's a very good product. I think it's one of the best in its class in terms of threat protection. I would rate it as an eight out of ten.

We use the product to address phishing attacks, security incidents, spoofing, attachment-based attacks, and impersonation. It sends image alerts to account servers before reaching the end recipient. It has behavior analysis and volume tools to detect and block malicious activities.

The product provides protection and security for email services. It helps our organization ensure we filter emails before reaching the end customers.

The product's most valuable features are impersonation protection and phishing countermeasures.

They could provide a unified licensing model, including all the security features.

We have been using Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection for five years.

We encountered only one stability-related incident in five years. I rate its stability a nine out of ten.

It is a scalable product. We have 600 users as our customers for it. They use it extensively. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

The technical support team could respond faster. They provide good services, but it could be better.

Positive

The initial setup process is simple. It takes around a few hours or less than a day to complete as it is a cloud service. We have to configure the main server and redirect it to Mimecast server. It requires one or two engineers to work on deployment and maintenance.

We took help from the reseller to implement the product.

The product generates a return on investment in terms of a high level of protection from external emails, both incoming and outgoing.

The product has good pricing in terms of return on investment. We purchase its yearly license. Extra costs are involved for first-time installation, but they are manageable. I rate its pricing a seven out of ten.

We worked on a POC for Proofpoint. Based on customer reviews worldwide, we switched to Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection.

We are happy customers of Mimecast Email Security. They provide great security features. I advise others to figure out how to deal with microservices in one platform. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution's performance is good.

The solution is complex and not easy to use.

I have to continuously manage the tech in a different space with the solution. I've got to manage different types of rules separately.

I have been working with Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection for three years.

The solution’s technical support is very good.

Positive

The solution's initial setup requires a bit of additional consultancy. Mimecast manages things differently, and they have a country-based support framework. Since we have multinational customers and have instances in the UK and Australia, we've got to work through different support sectors.

Mimecast could simplify the solution and include a central console like the one Microsoft has.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

URL inspection works pretty well.

Nothing’s been working properly in the product. There's a lot of misclassification. The attachment scanning feature doesn't work properly.

The product needs to fix the existing problems, which Mimecast is always in denial about. It definitely must catch up with the market. It needs to fix its core products, which don't work very well.

I have been using the solution for five years.

I rate the tool’s stability a four or five out of ten.

The product is not scalable.

The technical support is not great. It is poor at best.

Neutral

The return on investment and the value is very minimal with Mimecast.

The price is fine. For what it is, the product is overpriced. It's pretty much in line with what we would expect. However, for what it does now, there are much better products.

I would definitely recommend Avanan over Mimecast. IRONSCALES is also good. However, Avanan is by far a much more developed and intelligent product. Avanan’s attachment scanning works flawlessly. It works very, very well. The accuracy for spam and phishing is far, far superior. It also has better visibility, reporting, and other built-in tools like Shadow IT. Avanan provides visibility of where people are logging in from. It helps with anomaly detection and account takeover. Overall, Avanan is a much better product.

I don't know what happened to Mimecast, but it seems to be going backwards now. They've lost their way in the market, and other solutions are taking over now. I know a lot of people are having issues with Mimecast and are just moving away from it. Overall, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

We use the product as an anti-spam solution and for archiving emails.

The solution is pretty straightforward to use and easy to set up. It's one of the best products in the market that filters and does the job.

The solution's console interface was recently changed for the admins, but the previous one was much better because we could open tabs on it. Currently, it's just one pane, and we cannot open tabs in it.

I have been using Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection for five years.

We've been using the solution for five years, and it's pretty much stable.

Since the solution is license-based, you can easily tell them that you want to change the plan, and they can change it. Around 600 users are using the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support team is very good and very responsive.

Positive

The solution's deployment can be done in a day. Once everything is set up and you have all the permissions, you can finish it in a day.

One or two people are enough to deploy the solution. Since the solution is cloud-based, it just requires periodic checks on the policies from the vendor, which is done every four times a year.

Compared to the other solutions in the market, Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection's pricing is fine. We pay only for the yearly license or subscription, which covers all support.

Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection is deployed on-cloud in our organization.

Since it's cloud-based, the solution is very easy to maintain and configure.

Overall, I rate Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection a nine out of ten.

We are our business is a nonprofit medical, dental, behavioral health, and optometry.

We have HIPAA in the United States. This is, basically, a patient privacy protocol. We have to stay compliant with HIPAA. Therefore, we have to monitor the content of the mail, both in and out, on a very basic level to make sure that it doesn't give outpatient information. This product has a built-in HIPAA dictionary, So that it will automatically scan inbound and outbound emails, based on a set of parameters that we feed into the system. It will stop anything it thinks might be a problem. It will let us know, and then we can review the mail and release it or reject it as needed. That's extremely important for us so that personal health identification information doesn't get out there for any patients. 

We also use it to track messaging. If someone says, "I didn't get a message," we can confirm or deny that based on what we see. 

We use URL protection inside emails so it will potentially block what it thinks is a bad URL. Those are often false positives. However, it's better safe than sorry.

We do all our spam filtering through it so that it will block any spam. If it's on the borderline, it will let the user know and ask them if this is a legit email; however, mostly, it's just blocking things, and we review. A couple of times every day, we'll look just to see if anything's getting held there that shouldn't be.

If you violate HIPAA, you will be subject to a potential investigation or fines or have other problems. This solution helps mitigate issues surrounding that.

For example, once, an email came into a provider, a medical provider, and it had personal information in it regarding patients, and it got blocked. We are able to pick that up. And essentially, we wrote to the organization that sent it and said this is not allowed. You can't send it this way. Please send it as an encrypted email and just move forward from there.

We've had a couple of catches on the outbound side too. It's really helped. Also, on the spam or virus-type avoidance side of things, it's really helped there as well.

Due to our specialized use case, that HIPAA dictionary really comes in handy due to the fact that you just can't find that in a lot of products out there.

It can scale. 

The interface needs improvement.

If I'm looking at the administration panel right now, I can track messages. I can see what was accepted. I can see what's held. I can see what's rejected. I can see what's bounced. I can see delivery. I can see processing. However, it's all seven different things, and that's just silly. 

Also, if something's held and shouldn't be, I can release it, yet I can't add it straight to an allowed list from there. I have to go to a whole separate section, create a policy, update the policy, and add the email address, whereas in our prior product that we used to use, called AppRiver, if mail came in and it should be white-listed or allowed, you would just click the little box and say always allow, and it would just add it straight to the appropriate filter to allow it. The way we have to do it in this product is very convoluted. On the back end, there are ten different places to check for things before you finally figure out the right spot.

I'd like to have better support from the product in the future. I have noted that support has gotten worse over time. 

I've used the solution for almost five years. 

The solution is mostly stable. We've had some times when we just can't log in the product whatsoever. That's not uncommon for a cloud solution. However, it's not good when it happens. 

We had an outage once for twelve hours on their end where no email was going through.

The solution has been scalable.

Every single user here who has an email account essentially is part of this product since it's filtering every single email address. That's about 450 users. People that use it don't really know they use it.

We're growing as a company, and we're opening up another new facility next month and then one in the fall. So we'll probably add another 75 to 100 users by the end of the year.

Initially, the support was okay. It's gotten worse as time has gone on. 

We did previously use AppRiver.

The initial setup was fairly complex, quite frankly. We forced it into a smaller time frame partly due to them, and partly due to us. 

I'm not familiar with the pricing of the product.

We are on the cloud version. We are always on the latest version. 

I'd advise potential new users to do research and figure out the best solution for their needs. Ours was very specific, being in the healthcare industry. We could have benefited from really doing a little more research since it is difficult to use on our end.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We like the content filtering and secure messaging features. 

Many of our users complain that the system is blocking too many attachments. It's a good practice from a security perspective, but our users think Mimecast is doing too much. It might be something we'll have to adjust.

I have used Mimecast for about a year and a half.

Mimecast is scalable. However, we did face some challenges with the secure messaging part. 

I rate Mimecast seven out of 10 for ease of setup. Setting up Mimecast was pretty straightforward. We didn't need to deploy an on-prem client, so it was primarily configuring Mimecast to work with our mail flow. We had to switch over some of our domain services and ensure we had the proper certificates. It wasn't a difficult process. We also needed to communicate the changes to the staff and let people know how to access their blocked mail.

Only one person is required for the implementation, but a large enterprise might need a few admins to respond to user requests and release blocked emails. 

I rate Mimecast four out of 10 for pricing. I'm looking at value add for my organization. Since we made invested in the Microsoft enhanced security suite, Mimecast seems a little expensive relative to what we get from it. We already have phone functionality from another provider, so we only need Mimecast for secure messaging and email encryption. We think it's a bit expensive just for secured encrypted messaging.

We're an Office 365 customer, and we recently upgraded to the E5 license, which gave us many of the same security features as Mimecast, so we've started questioning if Mimecast provides a value add.

I rate Mimecast Email Security seven out of 10. It's doing what it's supposed to do, but there are a few annoying things from a user perspective. For example, it requires you to enroll your device with Mimecast to open a link from a known sender. This is someone you know that you're messaging. If they add a link, you have to authenticate your device through multifactor authentication to follow the link in the email.

Mimecast serves as an additional layer for email gateway security and data loss prevention. It also offers email signature management when Google's services fall short. Mimecast allows for uniform email signatures across the company. It also supports sending bulk promotional emails. 

Certainly, the primary area needing improvement is Mimecast's customer support. Our experience as Mimecast customers has been less than satisfactory. Even when raising a priority ticket, the response time is unacceptably long, often taking around five to six hours. This level of service is disappointing. Additionally, there have been recurring service disruptions in the UK region, leading to extended email delays due to various service issues. This year alone, we've encountered such problems on approximately four occasions.

I have been using Mimecast Web Security for almost one and a half years. 

I will rate the stability of Mimecast Web Security as a seven as stability concerns and bugs have been evident. The support problem I mentioned is also a factor. Microsoft is a solid product; however, there are imperfections.

The product's scalability is undoubtedly a strong point. Mimecast excels in this aspect, and the number of users doesn't seem to be a limiting factor. In our case, we've employed Mimecast both internally and for our clients. We've successfully tested it with a user base of 20 thousand individuals. No issues have arisen in this regard.

No, we heavily depend on the built-in solutions provided by Google Workspace. Google Workspace serves as our email platform and offers considerable capabilities. They have integrated features such as data loss prevention and advanced protection. Hence, our reliance on these features is significant. However, due to the COVID situation and the shift to remote work, we made a decision to explore products that offer supplementary functionalities beyond what Google provides.

It’s a straightforward process to set up Mimecast, especially for individuals experienced in email gateway security. The setup is quite effortless. In fact, it's a real-time implementation that can be accomplished within a short span, even as little as thirty to forty minutes. The ease of setup depends on how the user intends to utilize the product. If there is need to make direct DNS changes, there might be a 24-hour implementation time. However, if coordination is established with management or IT personnel, the setup can be performed during non-business hours, such as midnight. Complexity is minimal. While larger organizations often encounter time-consuming procedures, smaller ones can swiftly implement the necessary changes.

We installed it in-house. Regarding maintenance, the requirements are directly tied to the organization's size. For instance, if the target user base is around twenty thousand, it might necessitate a team of five to six engineers for deployment and addressing use cases. This is due in part to the user portal experience. For example, if emails get quarantined, users need to know how to manage their quarantined emails. Change management personnel should be available to provide user training on product usage. On the administrative side, extensive expertise isn't mandatory, especially if well-versed in email solutions. So, a maximum of five individuals would suffice.

The return on investment (ROI) is favorable, aside from the aforementioned support and stability concerns. These aspects are lacking, but otherwise, the product is valuable. As an email protection solution, it offers various functionalities, including URL-based protections. While certain features that would be beneficial are currently unavailable, Mimecast still outperforms alternatives in terms of features. The ROI is evident in the enhanced feature set compared to these competitors. We're currently in the process of evaluating other solutions, but Mimecast remains our current choice, and we're well-informed about its capabilities.

Two subscription options are currently offered: monthly and yearly. My suggestion is to opt for the yearly subscription as it can give some discount. The pricing isn't high as other cloud solutions are pricier than Microsoft's offerings.

My recommendation to anyone currently using Mimecast is to ensure you have established a direct communication channel with Mimecast. This is crucial in case you encounter issues, service disruptions, or downtime. Relying solely on the support team might not suffice. It's advisable to have knowledge of key individuals within Mimecast whom you can contact directly to gain insights into ongoing situations. This approach is essential, as there might be situations where reaching out to specific individuals is more effective than traditional support channels.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.