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.

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. 

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.

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 primarily use the solution for disaster recovery. We are on Office 365 as well, and it is a bit redundant. 

Right now, the solution provides us with peace of mind. If something were to happen, we know we can recover what we need. We haven't had to use it yet.

The peace of mind provided is great. We're now certain business-critical mail is perfectly protected in multiple ways. Our whole goal is to protect everything that is mission-critical in more ways than one. It helps ensure mailbox continuity.

Overall, just across all the Mimecast pieces that we use, it's somewhat of a mess when you want to figure out where you need to go to make a change. The interface isn't the best. How everything works on the back end is confusing.

There are no missing features to speak of.

I've used the solution since June of 2018. I've used it for almost five years at this point. 

We've had some problems with stability. I'd rate the overall stability seven out of ten.

The scalability is okay. I'd rate the ability to extend the solution seven out of ten.

I'm not sure if we have any plans at this time to increase usage. 

Once the implementation was complete, technical support began to peter off and was lacking.

Neutral

The initial implementation was rushed. It was more complex than it needed to be due to the fact that it got rushed into a very small timeline. Once we had set it up, support was a little bit lacking after that.

ROI is hard to determine. Since we've never had to perform a recovery, we never really use it, and yet it is a product we need to have.

I don't deal with the pricing or licensing aspects of the product I can't speak to how much it costs. 

It's a hosted solution. I'm not sure which version of the solution Im on at this time. 

I would advise others to research all the options out there and see what the best fit is. We started this mailbox continuity project before we moved to Office 365. And now that we've moved to Office 365, we kind of don't need this piece of technology in the same way that we used to need it when we had an on-prem exchange. Therefore, make sure that you actually need it and then research to find the best options.

Overall, I would rate the solution seven 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.

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 are using Mimecast Mailbox Continuity for the security of email from threats, such as spam, fishing, and viruses.

We are currently doing a POC with the solution.

The most valuable feature of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity is real-time alerts.

The price of the solution is expensive. It can improve by reducing the price. 

I have been using Mimecast Mailbox Continuity for approximately three months.

Mimecast Mailbox Continuity is highly stable.

I rate the scalability of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity a ten out of ten.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 400 users using this solution and we use it often.

I rate the scalability of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity a ten out of ten.

I have not used the support from the vendor. However, the implementation team is helpful.

We were previously using Sophos before switching to Office 365 and then to Mimecast Mailbox Continuity. We switch because before the email comes to our mailboxes it gets scanned by Mimecast Mailbox Continuity.

The initial setup of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity is simple. Our deployment took one week to complete after a few weeks of planning.

I rate the initial setup of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity a ten out of ten.

We did the implementation of the solution in-house with one person.

The price of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity is expensive.

I rate the price of Mimecast Mailbox Continuity an eight out of ten.

We evaluated Darktrace and they take a copy of the email and check it and then a report is made with the information. However, we preferred Mimecast Mailbox Continuity.

I rate Mimecast Mailbox Continuity a six out of ten. If the solution is deployed on the domain rather than the mailboxes it can be less expensive. We pay annually and there is no hidden cost.