Mimecast Advanced Email Security

This platform wins from its simple to use interface for both admin and user, plus the super helpful implementation and POC teams who have no trouble in allowing you to trial and test any scenario before signing up!

MTA based product that works regardless of which front end mail app you use with and O365 backend.

We switched from Barracuda to Mimecast and I definitely feel like Mimecast is more robust and has allowed for more customization of features.

Mimecast offers a lot more features than the old Barracuda gateway. It is all cloud-based as well. Being able to access it from anywhere is a plus right out of the gate. The Barracuda basically just did spam filtering. There was nothing in terms of archiving, list management, etc. VIP and impersonation protection was very good.

Mimecast Secure Email Gateway has a bit more features to use with its out of the box service.

The previous product (which Mimecast replaced) in Google Postini was a much more limited (and cheaper) product which did the basics but in nothing like the complexity and detail as Mimecast.

This was like going from a freeware solution to a Platinum industry leading solution (which it is). It's unsurprising that Mimecast see's significant use in the Legal sector as it's toolset is well geared for this.

We did look at Avast Email Security when we used Avast as or primary AV, however it seemed rather limited and it's flexibility which you really do need to fine tune the communication flow for your business.

We have had Mimecast longer then we have had MS365. We used Mimecast as a DR option for our Exchange server. Mimecast was recommended to us from a trusted partner and we did not compare it to too many products when we got it.

It has been a while but pricing was better at the time. Usability and integration was simple

We were previously using Tumbleweed to manage SPAM and it was not as effective as Mimecast - we had it deployed in addition to Mimecast and mimecast caught much more SPAM that Tumbleweed had marked as safe

Proofpoint was a solid competitor, but in the end, way overpriced for what we're trying to do. Mimecast was set up within a day and ready to rock and roll. Configuration guides made the process incredibly easy for cutover, and used them to cut our systems over easily to Mimecast.

The only alternate we have looked into is called Proofpoint. We did limited investigation into it and it seemed to be a similar product with fairly good reviews. But in the end since the pricing on Mimecast was so good it made no sense to consider anything else when we knew we were getting one of the best with Mimecast. Having the whole suite of Mimecast products at our disposal makes it hard to consider or compare other services.

We selected Mimecast mainly based on their reputation. We also demoed SpamTitan and Proofpoint but found that each did not have all of the features we wanted. All three were improvements to our old solution, which was based on SpamAssasin. Do note that Proofpoint has different products with very different prices and pedigrees. We went into the demo expecting one product and being recommended another.

We use both Mimecast alongside Proofpoint in our Organization. As mentioned earlier, if you are looking strictly for a secure email system, something that filters incoming mail and encrypts outgoing mail, I believe Proofpoint does this better. It is easy to use from an admin standpoint, the support is there when something goes wrong, and it integrates really well with programs like Outlook. Mimecast does a fine job as well, but we've run into usability problems from time to time. Although we do utilize the Proofpoint archive, Mimecast does a better job at having a cloud created copy of a user's inbox to be used for archival and DR purposes.

We found Mimecast to offer the value and features we were seeking at a more competitive price when compared to its competitors. It was a significant enhancement over the cloud-based service we used prior to switching. Therefore, we've been happy with our choice and would recommend Mimecast over anything else we've used or evaluated in the marketplace.

There are many solutions out there that provide email security - I know Sophos and Proofpoint are other solutions we have looked into. Mimecast has been a partner for many years and has really done the job well.
Barracuda is another provider that has been known for a long time for Spam, Phishing, and email security. We haven't recently evaluated this solution.

Mimecast was the most affordable and comprehensive solution compared to the competitors, the easiest to manage and arguably the one with the most features and effective filtering. Most of our peer firms use the product and their reviews are excellent. We've had very few problem with the product since implementation, and improvements continue to be made.

This is the first email security service we have used.

Barracuda - We've previously used barracuda and this has been much more powerful of a product with much more granularity. We also considered IronPort and Trustpoint

We used Symantec (previously Dell's) Email Security Cloud. The features were listed as similar to Mimecast, but support was a thousand times slower and we had significantly more spam, even after all the setting adjustments we could make. We also experienced several issues in with the sync application and needed to resync manually on occasion (for user accounts). Prior to that we used on prem Barracuda load balancers. They worked about as well as Mimecast for spam blocking, but setting up the Baysian databases so that it could begin learn what the users considered spam took ages. It of course did not the Business Continuity feature. Mimecast is so much better than anything else we tried. From a user point of view, it is rock solid, easy to use, simple to understand, has an easy iPhone app, provides PIN and 2FA for security - what else could an end user want?

Mimecast is as effective as Proofpoint, but cheaper. The built-in Office 365 email security features are good but offer less control.

Barracuda was causing us a lot of problems with missed malicious emails, and a high false positive count.

Proofpoint was evaluated against Mimecast and was found to appear superior. However when it came down to bidding, Mimecase undercut Proofpoint by a very large margin. Given the choice to do it again, we would probably purchase Proofpoint.

I really love the cloud-based solution of Mimecast versus an on-premise add-on for the email server. It gives us more flexibility to make changes internally as well as offering a more robust line of services by leveraging the cloud infrastructure and allows us to move from on-premise to the cloud for our email in the future.

Previously we have only used the default on-premise exchange that comes with SBS. This was very simple and only provided basic filtering of spam and junk mail. We weren't able to filter impersonation mail or emails with malicious code.

The largest amount of experience that I have is with Microsoft's discontinued ForeFront as well as the newer Exchange Online Protection. While both products do a fairly decent job of blocking spam, the interfaces are somewhat primitive compared to Mimecast. The lack of a plugin for Outlook also makes accessing and managing blocked/filtered email much more difficult, as the only way to do so is to log in to the website for either product and take a look. The administrative interfaces for both products are also markedly inferior to Mimecast.

I also had about a year of experience with Mailgate (on-premise) at a previous employer, which was a comparative nightmare to work with. I don't recommend that product to anyone.