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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.