Mimecast Email and Collaboration Threat Protection Reviews

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.

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.

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 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.