Mimecast Advanced Email Security Reviews

Mimecast Email Security is our main email security tool. It acts as an email gateway to scan emails before they are delivered to end users. I have been working with the tool for approximately four years.

Mimecast Email Security serves as the main email security tool in our organization. It acts as the email gateway, scanning emails before delivery to end users. One of the most useful features is the threat remediation module, which can be used to remove malicious emails that may have been delivered or manually remove them. We benefit from visibility into emails being sent or delivered, and we can analyze issues like incorrect DMARC configuration by third parties. This provides a good understanding of user interactions with external parties.

There is nothing that notably stands out in need of improvement at present.

I have used Mimecast Email Security for about four years.

I do not have any complaints regarding stability.

Mimecast technical support is generally quite good. Sometimes, the responses we receive can be too general, like advising to turn something on within our environment, which may not always be helpful.

I would rate Mimecast Email Security a nine out of ten. My job title is Information Security Analyst.

I really don't know all of the features of the solution.

I did have a problem with Mimecast. That is why I was looking for an alternative solution because their sender IP address gets poorly rated by Microsoft. So it blocks sending emails to Microsoft addresses. The aforesaid reason made me decide to opt for an alternate solution possibly.

I have been using the latest version of Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection for the last two to three years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a one out of ten because of its IP reputation.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution as six out of ten. With Mimecast's IP reputation being degraded by Microsoft, it just caused me huge problems.

I rate the technical support one out of ten. The product is good. Mimecast's support is not the most flexible.

Negative

On a scale of one to ten, where one is a difficult initial setup, and ten is easy, I rate the setup an eight. The setup was easy.

It was deployed in my organization through the cloud.

The deployment took two days.

The deployment was done by one person.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing a ten. It is an expensive tool, especially when compared to Microsoft Defender.

The poor thing about Mimecast is due to their unwillingness to move our center IP to a different center IP. So it doesn't get a bad reputation with Microsoft, and they refused to do that. So that's why I would possibly end up choosing a different solution.

To those planning to use the tool, I would ask them to make sure they put you on an email server. However, it has got a bad IP reputation because it refused to move off to a different server.

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

We use Mimecast to deliver email security to all of our clients. Between all of our customers, we have about 3,000 to 4,000 users. Some of our clients use Mimecast DMARC, too. 

Mimecast gives our clients peace of mind and helps them educate their users about email-based threats. 

We like Mimecast's spam filtering. The email signature feature is also a big plus for our users.  

Lately, Mimecast's outbound mail servers have been regularly blocklisted by spam filters. That didn't happen a few years back, but it seems to be a more frequent problem these days. When a server is blocklisted, it means all of my outgoing mail ends up in the recipient's junk mail. That affects my reputation and business confidence. 

I have used Mimecast for about 10 years.

I rate Mimecast eight out of 10 for stability. 

I rate Mimecast nine out of 10 for scalability. 

Some of our customers can't afford Mimecast, so we offer SpamTitan as an alternative. Mimecast is our preferred vendor, but we want to help secure our clients to the best of our ability. 

A few years ago, our team found the implementation to be somewhat challenging. It has gotten easier as we've grown more experienced. The difficulty depends on the expertise of the person doing it. 

I don't work with Mimecast every day, so it might be more difficult for me than it is for one of my techs who regularly does Mimecast implementations. It requires some specific in-depth product knowledge and an understanding of email solutions. 

The deployment time varies. In South Africa, it depends on who you use to deploy it. If you use one of Mimecast's local partners, it can take up to two weeks because of their process. However, it's only about four to eight hours of work. 

After deployment, there isn't much maintenance aside from supporting and educating your customers. Users require constant education on how to use the Mimecast client and release an email that has been blocked.

ROI is hard to quantify for security solutions because the client's return is that they don't have any breaches. We don't know how much a breach would cost them because it's all speculative. 

It's similar to home security. How do you quantify the added value of each component, like alarm systems, fencing, lighting, etc.?  Mimecast is like an electric fence. The lighting could be your EDR.

I rate Mimecast three out of 10 for affordability. It's much more expensive than competing solutions. It's like Mercedes versus Toyota. Pricing is always an issue. Mimecast charges per user. We pay about 2,500 rands per 50 users, so a client with 300 users pays about 8,000 rands a month.

You also need to pay an additional fee for support. It's around 3,500 rands a month. You don't get any support unless you purchase it, so we provide support for our customers. 

I rate Mimecast Email Security eight out of 10. 

Public Cloud

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.

Hybrid Cloud

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.

Public Cloud