Mimecast Email Security Reviews

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.

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.

It's very stable. 

We find the product to be scalable. 

The solution offers good technical support.

The price is reasonable. 

The installation is not so straightforward. In comparison, for example, Proofpoint or Defender offer easier installations when you integrate with Active Directory.

I started using the solution five years ago. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We can scale the solution as needed. 

Technical support is good. We are happy with the level of support on offer. 

Positive

I've used Defender, Proofpoint, and Mimecast. 

Some companies are using Defender, some companies are using Proofpoint, and some are using Mimecast.

In my company, we are using Defender.

Mimecast and Microsoft Office 365 is better than Proofpoint for the mail filter rules only. The mail filter rules in Proofpoint are not the best.

The solution is not straightforward to set up. The integration can be a bit harder than when compared to other solutions. That said, it's not so hard it's impossible. 

I'd rate the initial setup a four out of five in terms of complexity.

There are three types of licenses, however, I don't know the exact pricing or differences. My understanding is that it is not overly expensive, as my clients have used it for years and they would have left if it was costly.

I'm a freelancer and working support for some companies who are using Mimecast and Proofpoint. Sometimes I create it as a subscription for them, and I configure everything from the scratch, and sometimes, I take it already configured and just maintain it and tune the settings in.

I'd advise those implementing the solution to read the documentation carefully before beginning. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd rate them higher, however, they are difficult to set up with Active Directory.

We have a client using the Mimecast tool. We observe multiple information sensors, such as default information, mismatched data, unknown IPs, and various user activities.

They use Mimecast to monitor outbound traffic, including impersonation and mismatched data. All these activities are managed within Mimecast. Companies use Mimecast to enhance network security within their budget. For outbound communication, emails go to Mimecast, where they are scanned and delivered to the user.

We are monitoring emails that come from outside the organization. Some impersonation policies are in place, and we are tracking five different types of impersonation policies. These policies include external IP addresses, external users, reply-to mismatches, default inbound attachments, and VIP impersonation cases.

Mimecast need to ensure that the body text format is correctly handled and that images are properly embedded in the body text. Additionally, Mimecast should ensure that the system can accommodate multiple users and effectively send information to them.

We are using V7.5.0 of the solution.

One person is using this solution.

The initial setup is easy.

I have learned various aspects related to the topic. I will monitor all types of logs, including those from Mimecast, which provides information about users’ contacts, histories, and account numbers. Although multiple policies are in place, we are currently monitoring just five specific types.

Mimecast is useful. According to the premises, Mimecast is important, but the choice of tools often depends on each company’s requirements and budget. While Mimecast is a highly effective console for email protection, companies select tools based on their own budgets and needs.

It is easy for a beginner to learn. If a person understands impersonation policies and how to apply them, the process becomes straightforward. However, if someone is unfamiliar with these policies and their monitoring, it can be challenging. However, once a person is knowledgeable about impersonation policies, the process becomes much easier.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for email security.

Email security is the most valuable feature of the solution.

The solution should include more AI features instead of Mimecast's more general static configuration tooling.

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

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

The solution was deployed by a vendor for us.

Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection is a well-known solution that was recommended to us by a third party.

I wouldn't say Mimecast Email Security with Targeted Threat Protection is the best tool out there, but it's okay. I would advise potential users to try out its alternatives as well.

Overall, I rate the solution a six or seven out of ten.