Mimecast Advanced Email Security Reviews

My main use case for Mimecast Advanced Email Security is to check the logs of inbound emails, and if something is blocked, then accordingly, I will review and provide the solution so that it will not get blocked next time.

For example, there was one external sender who was sending us an email, and that got blocked because of the DMARC policy, so I just checked the logs there to solve that issue.

Regarding my main use case, sometimes I just read the SMTP logs to check and verify if the emails are sent out successfully or if they are delivered, such as relayed to Microsoft 365 or the other mail servers successfully.

One of the best features Mimecast Advanced Email Security offers is message retraction, which I really appreciate.

What I appreciate about that method is that I know that message SMTP logs help verify if the emails are successfully relayed or not from our server to different servers, and also the message I'm talking about is specifically for retracting any emails that were wrongly delivered to the recipient mailboxes.

Mimecast Advanced Email Security positively impacts my organization by helping us to deliver any spam or malware emails, which I know can cause our users to be in danger if any emails slip from the filters.

Mimecast Advanced Email Security is all good, but if we can include AI, it will be really good.

Regarding Mimecast Advanced Email Security's AI capabilities, my thoughts on its governance and security are that security is always the first priority of Mimecast, so we basically do not share our data with the AI; we are just improving some filters.

As for the accuracy and reliability of output, I find the accuracy of Mimecast Advanced Email Security to be good.

I have been using Mimecast Advanced Email Security for five years.

I notice some emails are delivered because of that, and we are changing some DMARC policies, so accordingly, I will review on the platform and block as required.

My advice for others looking into using Mimecast Advanced Email Security is that they can strengthen their security very well if they choose to go with it. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

Hybrid Cloud

Microsoft Azure

My use case for Mimecast Email Security is that it's one of the best solutions for a traditional gateway. Check Point is the best for the AI-based solution. We are selling both as a partner for both solutions to customers.

Mimecast Email Security includes the best gateway solution across all Cisco, Trend Micro, and other solutions. For customers who want a traditional gateway, we suggest using Mimecast Email Security. For customers who want the advanced solution, we suggest Check Point for those features.

Mimecast Email Security's anti-phishing features are good and perform as expected.

Mimecast Email Security is a good solution because our customers haven't reported any phishing emails being delivered. It performs effectively as a traditional gateway solution. We haven't received any complaints regarding this solution.

Mimecast Email Security can be improved by adding some API integrations. Instead of remaining a traditional gateway, Mimecast Email Security needs to provide API solutions similar to Check Point.

I have been working with Mimecast Email Security for almost two years.

The system is not user-friendly because you have to create policies that are mapped in a dictionary. As an IT engineer, I understand how it works, but explaining it to another IT person can be difficult. Having more user-friendly dashboards would improve the work experience. In Mimecast Email Security, checking policies in the dictionary or gateway is very complicated, and not everyone understands this process.

If you examine the Check Point portal, it's user-friendly with easily accessible tabs that anyone can explore. With Mimecast Email Security, making changes might impact existing mailboxes. The portal is complicated compared to Check Point's user-friendly interface.

Mimecast Email Security is a stable solution. We don't encounter many issues with it. Customers report issues rarely, once or twice a month at most. It's performing well, and customers aren't reporting significant problems after implementation. They confirm it's a good solution where only one or two rare emails get through, while the rest are properly blocked without any issues.

Mimecast Email Security is a scalable solution. If Mimecast Email Security introduces API solutions, it will dominate the market. This would also be beneficial for Check Point.

I would rate my experience with technical support of Mimecast Email Security between seven and eight out of ten for their support.

Positive

The initial setup of Mimecast Email Security was easy, though it's not user-friendly.

My relationship with Mimecast Email Security is as a partner.

I am not familiar with the pricing details of Mimecast Email Security as I am an engineer. The sales team manages all pricing-related matters.

Most customers are using Mimecast Email Security in the cloud only, not on-premises.

Mimecast Email Security has a high catch rate compared to other solutions such as Cisco, Trend Micro, or Barracuda. They consistently implement new solutions and inform all their customers and partners about new features, which is a positive aspect.

Based on overall experience, Mimecast Email Security is the best solution for traditional gateways. Having worked with multiple traditional gateways including Cisco, Trend Micro, and Barracuda, Mimecast Email Security stands out as the superior option.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Mimecast Email Security a 10 overall.

Public Cloud

Other

We are doing a POC (Proof of Concept) for a customer looking into offset solutions to see how it performs compared to other players in email security.

In terms of efficacy, Proofpoint is better than Mimecast, though it's a little difficult to manage. A distinct advantage of Mimecast is its ability to block phishing and impostor attacks, which are significant threats currently. Security is a major feature where email security tools like Mimecast have delivered value by identifying and preventing phishing emails.

Mimecast needs to reduce the number of false positive emails; a big pain point for us. A lot of emails were missed despite being known samples. This needs improvement to reduce the workload on admins to manage emails.

I have been familiar with Mimecast for three to four years.

I rate the stability as eight point five out of ten.

I rate scalability as nine out of ten.

Support is not very good; not bad, but not very good. Response time is decent, however, support personnel are hesitant to engage in remote sessions, preferring to share documentation via email.

Positive

We have used Proofpoint and Barracuda for Security awareness training. The Barracuda tool is very poor; nobody is happy with it. I also have experience managing and implementing Proofpoint.

I have implemented Proofpoint, yet not Mimecast. We manage Mimecast for our customers.

There is definitely a return on investment when using Mimecast, as it blocks phishing emails, reducing the risk of significant financial losses.

The pricing is higher for Mimecast, particularly for the Indian market, where it is considered expensive.

We have experience with Mimecast, Proofpoint, Trend Micro, Barracuda, DirectCoder, and TruePoint.

I recommend Mimecast based on customer requirements and budget. It is a good tool for email security. I rate it eight out of ten.

Could you please describe a few use cases for it? What do you use it for? How do you use it?

From the features perspective, are there any specific features in the Mimecast Email Security that you find the most effective in intercepting phishing attempts?

To clarify, you mentioned that you are using the AI-driven structure in their Abnormal functionality to indicate phishing attempts. Do you use any AI within Mimecast Email Security?

Have you worked with or utilized the targeted threat protection in the Mimecast Email Security?

If I ask you about the room for improvement, we discussed the phishing aspect, the DNS system, and the key rotation. Apart from that, are there any other areas that you would like to see improved or enhanced in the Mimecast Email Security?

The solution has been in use for more than five years.

What are your thoughts on the technical support of the Mimecast Email Security?

On a scale of one to 10, where 10 is the best, how would you rate the technical support of the Mimecast Email Security?

Neutral

Can I ask you about the initial setup process of the Mimecast Email Security? Do you find it straightforward? Is it complex somehow?

I have a question about the ROI, regarding the cost efficiency and operational efficiency of the Mimecast Email Security. Do you have any data to share with us? Do you find it cost-effective? Are there any measurable benefits?

Do you know anything about the pricing and cost of the Mimecast Email Security?

Based on your rich experience with the Mimecast Email Security, what kind of advice or recommendation can you share with users who are considering it? The reviewer gave Mimecast Email Security a rating of 10 out of 10.

My main use case for Mimecast Advanced Email Security is as an email gateway. A quick, specific example of how I use it as an email gateway in my day-to-day work is as a spam filter.

The best features Mimecast Advanced Email Security offers, in my experience, are BEC and Graymail protection. The BEC and Graymail protection features have helped me and my team by implementing a policy that pops for our CEO's name when it's used.

Mimecast Advanced Email Security positively impacts my organization by filtering spam emails. Those filtering and spam rules have made a difference for my team and my workflow by reducing both spam emails and the time spent dealing with junk mail.

I do not know how Mimecast Advanced Email Security can be improved.

I have been working in my current field for 90 days.

I would suggest trying it out in a demo, and if you like it, go with it.

On-premises

I have been working with Mimecast Email Security.

The functionality, including email archiving and data loss prevention features, is adequate. Mimecast Email Security offers certain features inherent to the product which are beneficial. In case of additional needs, I explore further customization.

There is room for improvement since new threats are emerging. Considering the availability of new features would be worthwhile. Mimecast Email Security is somewhat expensive compared to the competition in the Indian market, and the local presence is lacking as they do not have a local representative currently.

I have been working with Mimecast Email Security for approximately seven months.

Currently, I am not facing any issues with Mimecast Email Security. If something comes up, I will be keen on exploring other products.

I have been satisfied with Mimecast Email Security as a good solution. However, if I need anything additional, I will surely explore what can be done on that. I would rate this product nine out of ten.

On-premises

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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.

Neutral

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

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 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.

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.