Deepak Gupta

Cybersecurity · Email Security

Top 5 Email Security Platforms of 2026

Email security compared: Abnormal AI, Proofpoint, Microsoft Defender for Office 365, Mimecast, and Material Security.

By Deepak Gupta·Aug 15, 2026·12 min·5 tools compared

Email SecurityBECPhishing ProtectionSecure Email GatewayAccount TakeoverCybersecurity

Quick Comparison

Platform	Best For	Deployment Model	Core Strength	Pricing
Abnormal AI	Stopping BEC and vendor email compromise that gateways miss	API integration (no MX changes)	Behavioral AI baselining per employee/vendor relationship	Custom (per mailbox, quote-based)
Proofpoint	Enterprises that want one vendor for gateway, DLP, and threat intel	Secure email gateway (MX rerouting)	TAP/TRAP retroactive remediation plus Nexus threat intel	$35-65/mailbox/year list for Advanced bundle
Microsoft Defender for Office 365	M365 shops covering baseline phishing/malware for free or cheap	Native to Exchange Online	Bundled into E3 (Plan 1) and E5 (Plan 2)	Plan 1 $2/user/mo, Plan 2 $5/user/mo standalone
Mimecast	Regulated orgs needing email security plus continuity and training in one contract	Secure email gateway (MX rerouting)	Mailbox continuity during Exchange/M365 outages	Custom (quote-based, tiered S1/S2/S3)
Material Security	Cloud-native teams whose real risk is account takeover, not malware volume	API integration (no MX changes)	Post-compromise containment: message-level access locks, OAuth governance	Custom (per mailbox, quote-based)

Abnormal AI

Best For: Stopping BEC and vendor email compromise that gateways miss
Deployment Model: API integration (no MX changes)
Core Strength: Behavioral AI baselining per employee/vendor relationship
Pricing: Custom (per mailbox, quote-based)

Proofpoint

Best For: Enterprises that want one vendor for gateway, DLP, and threat intel
Deployment Model: Secure email gateway (MX rerouting)
Core Strength: TAP/TRAP retroactive remediation plus Nexus threat intel
Pricing: $35-65/mailbox/year list for Advanced bundle

Microsoft Defender for Office 365

Best For: M365 shops covering baseline phishing/malware for free or cheap
Deployment Model: Native to Exchange Online
Core Strength: Bundled into E3 (Plan 1) and E5 (Plan 2)
Pricing: Plan 1 $2/user/mo, Plan 2 $5/user/mo standalone

Mimecast

Best For: Regulated orgs needing email security plus continuity and training in one contract
Deployment Model: Secure email gateway (MX rerouting)
Core Strength: Mailbox continuity during Exchange/M365 outages
Pricing: Custom (quote-based, tiered S1/S2/S3)

Material Security

Best For: Cloud-native teams whose real risk is account takeover, not malware volume
Deployment Model: API integration (no MX changes)
Core Strength: Post-compromise containment: message-level access locks, OAuth governance
Pricing: Custom (per mailbox, quote-based)

1

Abnormal AI

Best Overall

Best for: Stopping business email compromise and vendor email compromise that legacy gateways let through

“Abnormal AI (rebranded from Abnormal Security in April 2025) is built specifically for the attack pattern that costs organizations the most money: a well-written email from a trusted-looking sender asking for a wire transfer or a payroll change, with no malicious link or attachment for a gateway to scan. Its behavioral AI baselines normal communication patterns per employee and per vendor relationship, then flags deviations. For the BEC and invoice-fraud problem specifically, it is the strongest of the five.”

Pros

Behavioral baselining per employee and vendor relationship catches payment-fraud and invoice-fraud emails that contain no malware or link for a gateway to scan
Deploys via API against Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace in minutes, no MX record changes or mail rerouting required
AI Security Mailbox automates triage of user-reported phishing, cutting the queue security teams manually work through
Account takeover response includes real-time session revocation, not just alerting after the fact
Attune 1.0 behavioral AI model (shipped March 2026) extends the same baselining approach beyond email into connected SaaS activity

Cons

No attachment sandboxing, URL rewriting, or content disarm and reconstruction: it assumes Microsoft or Google's native filter already blocks known malware signatures
Behavioral baselines need roughly 30-90 days of mailbox history to mature, so detection accuracy is weaker in the first month after deployment
Pricing is not published; third-party benchmarks put it meaningfully above legacy gateway pricing per mailbox
Only integrates with Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, not a fit for organizations running on-premises Exchange or other mail providers

Honest Weakness: Abnormal doesn't replace a secure email gateway, it sits on top of one. It has no attachment sandbox and no URL-rewriting engine of its own; it relies entirely on Microsoft or Google's native filtering to catch known malware and generic spam, and focuses its own detection on the behavioral, no-payload attacks those filters miss. Buyers who need gateway-grade content inspection as a standalone control (common in industries with strict mail-flow compliance requirements) still need Defender, Google's native filter, or a traditional SEG underneath it. Total cost is native filtering plus Abnormal, not Abnormal instead of it.

Why Behavioral AI Matters for BEC

Traditional secure email gateways detect threats by inspecting content: known-bad links, malicious attachments, signature matches. Business email compromise and vendor email compromise attacks often contain none of that. A convincing email from a compromised or spoofed vendor account asking to update banking details for an upcoming invoice passes every content-based check. Abnormal's approach instead builds a behavioral profile of how each employee and each known vendor relationship normally communicates (tone, timing, request patterns, financial details referenced) and flags emails that deviate from that baseline, which is the only reliable way to catch payload-free social engineering at scale.

API Deployment Trade-offs

Because Abnormal integrates via API rather than rerouting mail through a gateway, it sees mail after Microsoft or Google has already delivered it, which means zero added latency and no single point of failure if the vendor has an outage. The trade-off is that Abnormal cannot block a message before delivery the way an inline gateway can; its typical response is auto-remediation (pulling the message from the inbox) within seconds to minutes of delivery, not pre-delivery blocking. For most BEC scenarios this is fast enough, since the attack usually depends on a human reading and acting on the email, not an automated payload firing on open.

Custom pricing, not published; sold as an add-on layered on Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, priced per mailbox via quote

Visit Abnormal AI

2

Proofpoint

Best for Enterprise

Best for: Large enterprises that want gateway, DLP, and threat intelligence from a single vendor

“Proofpoint's Aegis Threat Protection Platform (increasingly sold as part of the unified Proofpoint Prime bundle launched April 2025) remains the most comprehensive email security suite on the market: secure email gateway, Targeted Attack Protection (TAP) URL and attachment sandboxing, Threat Response Auto-Pull (TRAP) for retroactive remediation, Adaptive Email Security (behavioral detection from the 2023 Tessian acquisition), and DMARC management through Email Fraud Defense. For a security team that wants breadth and is willing to manage the complexity, Proofpoint covers more ground than any other vendor here.”

Pros

TRAP retroactively pulls malicious emails already delivered across the organization, including ones already forwarded internally, not just from the original inbox
Nexus/Emerging Threats research team is one of the largest threat intelligence operations in the industry, and its feeds are licensed by other security vendors
Adaptive Email Security layer (from the Tessian acquisition) adds behavioral detection on top of traditional gateway filtering, closing some of the BEC gap that pure gateways have
Broadest module set of any vendor here: gateway, DLP, archiving, encryption, and DMARC management available under one contract

Cons

Full protection (Email Protection plus TAP plus TRAP) requires stacking modules, and list pricing for the bundle runs $35-65 per mailbox per year, with enterprise-negotiated rates around $18-35 at 10,000+ seats
Gateway architecture requires MX record changes to route mail through Proofpoint, adding a hop and a dependency on Proofpoint's own uptime
Admin console sprawl across legacy per-module interfaces persists even after the Prime unification effort began in 2025
Steeper learning curve than API-based competitors; typically requires a dedicated email security admin, not something a generalist IT person configures well part-time

Honest Weakness: Proofpoint's breadth is also its cost. Getting full protection means licensing multiple sub-modules (Email Protection, TAP, TRAP, Adaptive Email Security) rather than one flat product, and even with the Prime unification push, admins still work across interfaces that reflect years of bolt-on acquisitions. For an enterprise security team with headcount to dedicate to email security administration, that depth is worth it. For a leaner IT team that wants one dashboard and predictable per-seat pricing, the operational overhead and module-stacking cost are a real tax, and API-based platforms produce comparable BEC detection with far less setup.

TAP and TRAP Together

Targeted Attack Protection rewrites URLs and detonates attachments in a sandbox before delivery, catching payload-based threats at the gateway. Threat Response Auto-Pull then handles the case where a threat is identified after delivery, whether because the malicious payload was updated post-click or because a user forwarded the message internally before it was flagged. Running both in tandem is genuinely differentiated: most competitors here do one or the other well, not both.

The Prime Consolidation

Proofpoint Prime Threat Protection, announced April 2025, is an attempt to unify Aegis (email threat protection), Identity Threat Defense, and Sigma Information Protection into one architecture designed around agentic AI workflows and a single console. It is a genuine acknowledgment that the multi-console problem was real. Buyers evaluating Proofpoint in 2026 should ask specifically how much of their target module set has actually moved onto the unified Prime console versus still living on legacy per-product interfaces, since the migration is gradual, not complete.

Full Advanced bundle (Email Protection + TAP + TRAP) runs $35-65/mailbox/year at list price; enterprise-negotiated rates of $18-35/mailbox/year at 10,000+ seats

Visit Proofpoint

3

Microsoft Defender for Office 365

Best Value

Best for: Microsoft 365 shops that want solid baseline coverage without a separate line-item vendor

“Defender for Office 365 is the default filter for every Exchange Online mailbox, and as of July 1, 2026, Plan 1 is included in Microsoft 365 E3 and Office 365 E3 at no additional cost, a genuine shift from its prior paid-add-on status. For known malware, known phishing, and generic spam, it is competent and effectively free for E3/E5 customers. It is not, on its own, a strong defense against targeted BEC or vendor impersonation, which is why so many Defender-only shops end up layering a second product on top.”

Pros

Plan 1 (Safe Links, Safe Attachments, real-time detonation) is now bundled into Microsoft 365 E3 as of July 2026, effectively free for existing E3 customers
Plan 2 adds Attack Simulation Training and Automated Investigation and Response (AIR), and is included in E5
Deep native integration with Microsoft Purview, Sentinel, and Entra ID means email signal correlates directly with identity and endpoint telemetry without a separate integration project
Zero incremental procurement for organizations already paying for E3 or E5, no separate vendor contract or renewal cycle

Cons

Because Defender is the default filter on every M365 tenant, it is also the most tested target for attackers, who routinely trial phishing kits against free or trial M365 tenants to confirm they pass Defender before sending the same payload to targets
Detection of payload-free BEC and vendor impersonation lags dedicated behavioral tools; most Defender-only shops that have been hit by wire fraud add a second layer specifically for this gap
Full capability requires Plan 2, which means either E5 licensing or a standalone add-on cost beyond the E3 baseline
Policy configuration is spread across the Defender portal, Microsoft Purview, and the Exchange admin center, a fragmented admin experience compared to a single-vendor console

Honest Weakness: Defender's ubiquity is a structural weakness as much as a strength: attackers specifically test payloads against Defender/EOP before sending them, since it is the one filter almost every target organization runs. For baseline coverage against known malware and generic phishing, Defender (especially now that Plan 1 ships in E3) is the right default and there's no reason to pay for a redundant gateway on top of it. But organizations that have experienced BEC, invoice fraud, or vendor impersonation should not treat Defender as sufficient on its own; that is specifically the gap Abnormal AI and Material Security are built to close.

The July 2026 E3 Change

Prior to July 2026, Defender for Office 365 Plan 1 was a paid add-on even for E3 customers, which meant many organizations ran E3 with only Exchange Online Protection (the more basic anti-spam/anti-malware layer) rather than Safe Links and Safe Attachments. Folding Plan 1 into E3 at no extra cost closes that gap for a large share of the installed base and is a meaningful upgrade to the default security posture of Microsoft 365, not a marketing repackaging.

Where Defender Alone Falls Short

Independent testing and incident postmortems consistently point to the same pattern: Defender catches known malware and mass phishing well, but sophisticated, targeted BEC (a single well-crafted email with no link or attachment, sent from a plausible-looking domain) is harder for a rules-and-signature-oriented filter to catch than for a system built to baseline normal communication behavior. This is precisely why Defender is frequently paired with, rather than replaced by, a behavioral layer like Abnormal AI once an organization has experienced a real BEC incident.

Plan 1: $2/user/month standalone (included in Microsoft 365 Business Premium and, as of July 2026, in E3). Plan 2: $5/user/month standalone add-on, included in E5.

Visit Microsoft Defender for Office 365

4

Mimecast

Runner Up

Best for: Regulated organizations wanting email security, continuity, and awareness training under one contract

“Mimecast is a comprehensive email security suite (Essential/Advanced/Comprehensive tiers, sometimes labeled S1/S2/S3) that bundles gateway-based threat protection with mailbox continuity, archiving, and integrated security awareness training. Its differentiator is Mimecast Continuity, which keeps mail flowing to end users even during an Exchange or Microsoft 365 outage, a capability none of the other four vendors here offer. For compliance-heavy industries that want one vendor and one contract for email security plus continuity plus training, Mimecast is the strongest fit.”

Pros

Mimecast Continuity keeps email flowing during Exchange Online or Microsoft 365 outages, a genuinely unique capability among the vendors compared here
Integrated security awareness training with human risk scoring (built on the Elevate Security acquisition) ties phishing simulation results directly to the same console as threat detection
CyberGraph AI impersonation detection and a built-in DMARC Analyzer at the Advanced/Comprehensive tiers reduce the need for a separate DMARC management tool
Single vendor covers threat protection, archiving, continuity, and training, which simplifies procurement and vendor risk review for compliance-focused buyers

Cons

Pricing is quote-only; third-party cost tracking puts base bundles around $40-80 per user per year and comprehensive packages at $100-150+, with no published list price to anchor a budget conversation
Requires MX record changes to route mail through the gateway, the same architectural dependency and added-hop trade-off as Proofpoint
Feature set reflects a series of acquisitions (Elevate Security for training, Segasec for brand protection) with the same module-sprawl pattern as Proofpoint, rather than a single ground-up platform
Continuity is valuable insurance but redundant cost for organizations already on Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace with strong native uptime SLAs and no history of extended outages

Honest Weakness: Mimecast's real differentiator, mailbox continuity plus integrated awareness training, only pays for itself if you actually need both. It is priced and architected as a broad email-plus-risk suite, not a focused detection engine, so a buyer whose only goal is the strongest possible phishing and BEC catch rate is paying for continuity and training modules that may go unused. The consolidation case is real for regulated industries (financial services, healthcare) that need continuity, archiving, and training bundled with one vendor and one contract for audit purposes; it's a weaker case for a cloud-native company on M365 or Workspace whose uptime concerns are already covered by Microsoft's or Google's own SLA.

Continuity as a Real Differentiator

Most email security vendors assume the underlying mail platform (Exchange Online, Google Workspace) stays up and focus entirely on filtering what flows through it. Mimecast Continuity is built on the opposite assumption: that the mail platform itself can go down, and that users still need to send and receive mail during that window. This is a narrow but real need for organizations where an email outage has direct business impact (trading desks, customer-facing support operations, time-sensitive legal or financial communication), and it is a capability the other four vendors compared here simply do not offer.

Training Tied to Detection

Mimecast's acquisition of Elevate Security folded human risk scoring into the same console as threat detection, so a user who repeatedly clicks simulated phishing links can be flagged for tighter inbound controls or mandatory retraining automatically, rather than security awareness training running as a disconnected annual compliance exercise. For organizations that treat phishing susceptibility as a risk signal worth acting on operationally, this integration is more useful than running a separate training vendor.

Custom, quote-based across Essential/Advanced/Comprehensive tiers; third-party tracking puts typical costs at $40-80/user/year for base bundles, $100-150+/user/year for comprehensive packages

Visit Mimecast

5

Material Security

Honorable Mention

Best for: Cloud-native teams whose real exposure is account takeover and data exposure, not malware volume

“Material Security takes a fundamentally different approach from the other four: instead of trying to be the best filter at delivery time, it assumes Google Workspace or Microsoft 365's native filtering already handles the bulk of malware and spam, and focuses on what happens after a phishing email lands or a credential gets stolen. Its message-level access controls can lock down sensitive historical emails even after an attacker has valid credentials, which pure detection-and-response tools don't do. For organizations whose actual incidents are account takeover and sensitive-data exposure rather than malware volume, Material addresses the real gap.”

Pros

Message-level access controls can wall off sensitive historical emails (password resets, financial data, legal correspondence) behind step-up authentication even after an attacker has valid stolen credentials, which most vendors here don't attempt
OAuth Remediation Agent audits and revokes risky third-party app and AI agent OAuth grants into Google Workspace, closing a growing attack surface most email security tools ignore entirely
Deploys entirely via API in minutes against Google Workspace or Microsoft 365, no gateway, no MX changes
Extends the same containment model to Google Drive file security, not just the inbox, addressing the reality that a compromised account exposes more than email

Cons

No gateway-level content filtering of its own: no attachment sandboxing and no URL rewriting, so it cannot serve as a standalone replacement for the native Google/Microsoft filter
Smaller, newer company than the other four vendors here, which means more procurement due diligence on vendor stability and roadmap longevity for buyers with strict vendor-risk requirements
No archiving, continuity, or built-in awareness training, a genuinely narrower feature set than the Proofpoint/Mimecast suites for buyers who want one vendor to cover all of those
Pricing is entirely custom and not benchmarked publicly the way Proofpoint's or Microsoft's list pricing is, making early budget conversations harder

Honest Weakness: Material doesn't do primary threat detection at delivery time. It has no gateway and no attachment sandbox, and it assumes Google or Microsoft's native filter already catches most malware and spam before Material's containment layer ever gets involved. That is exactly right for a security team whose actual incident history is account takeover and post-compromise data exposure rather than malware volume. It is the wrong primary control for a team that specifically needs gateway-grade content inspection (attachment detonation, URL rewriting) as their first line of defense; those buyers should pair Material with, or choose instead, a gateway-based platform like Proofpoint or Mimecast.

Containment Instead of Prevention

Most email security spend goes toward preventing a malicious email from reaching the inbox. Material's bet is that a meaningful share of real-world damage happens after that point, when an attacker has already phished a password or hijacked a session, and the question becomes what that attacker can actually do with mailbox access. By locking down sensitive historical messages behind step-up authentication rather than relying on the initial login being secure, Material reduces the blast radius of a credential compromise that has already happened, which none of the gateway-first vendors compared here directly address.

The OAuth and AI Agent Angle

As organizations connect more third-party apps and, increasingly, AI agents to Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 via OAuth, each grant is a potential persistent access path that survives a password reset. Material's OAuth Remediation Agent gives security teams visibility into what's actually connected and the ability to revoke risky grants, a problem that is growing faster than most legacy email security vendors have adapted to address.

Custom pricing, not published; per-mailbox quote bundling email, file, and account coverage at a cost the vendor positions as comparable to email-only tools

Visit Material Security

Which One Should You Pick?

Use Case	Our Recommendation
Finance team has been targeted by wire-fraud or invoice-fraud emails with no malicious link or attachment	Abnormal AI's behavioral baselining is purpose-built for payload-free BEC and vendor email compromise, the exact pattern that gateway-based filtering misses.
Large enterprise wants one vendor covering gateway filtering, DLP, archiving, and threat intelligence	Proofpoint's Aegis/Prime bundle covers the most ground under one contract, at the cost of module complexity and higher per-mailbox pricing.
Small or mid-size company on Microsoft 365 E3/E5 wanting solid baseline coverage without new vendor spend	Microsoft Defender for Office 365 Plan 1 is now bundled into E3 as of July 2026 and covers known malware and generic phishing at effectively no incremental cost.
Regulated organization (financial services, healthcare) needs email security plus mailbox continuity plus awareness training under one audit-friendly contract	Mimecast is the only vendor here offering continuity for Exchange/M365 outages alongside integrated training and DMARC management.
Security team's actual incidents are account takeover and sensitive-data exposure, not malware volume	Material Security's message-level containment and OAuth governance directly address post-compromise exposure in ways detection-only tools don't.

How we evaluated

Email is still the top delivery channel for both malware and financial fraud, and the platforms that stop malware are often not the same ones that stop business email compromise. This comparison weighs both, plus what happens after a phishing email or a stolen credential already gets through.

Each platform was assessed on the criteria that decide real outcomes, the same dimensions you see in the comparison table above:

Best fit: the specific email threat pattern each platform is actually built to stop.
Deployment model: gateway (MX rerouting, pre-delivery blocking) versus API-based (no rerouting, post-delivery remediation), and what each trade-off costs you operationally.
BEC and behavioral detection: whether the platform can catch payload-free social engineering, not just known malware and links.
Post-compromise containment: what happens if a phishing email or stolen credential already got through.
Pricing model: whether cost is published or quote-based, and how it scales with mailbox count.

What we reviewed

This comparison draws on vendor documentation and publicly posted pricing, third-party pricing benchmarks where vendors don't publish rate cards, and the threat landscape that defines the category, including FBI IC3 data on business email compromise losses. It reflects the market as of 2026 and is refreshed as vendors ship and reprice.

Note

Editorial independence: this is a vendor-neutral comparison with no paid placements, sponsorships, or affiliate links. Rankings reflect fit for the stated use cases, not commercial relationships.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a secure email gateway and an API-based email security platform?

A secure email gateway (Proofpoint, Mimecast) requires changing your MX records so mail routes through the vendor's infrastructure before reaching Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, which enables pre-delivery blocking (the email never reaches the inbox) but adds a hop and a dependency on the gateway vendor's own uptime. An API-based platform (Abnormal AI, Material Security) connects directly to Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace via API with no mail rerouting, deploying in minutes, but it generally sees mail after native delivery and remediates (pulls a message back out of the inbox) rather than blocking before delivery. Neither model is universally better; gateways suit organizations that want pre-delivery blocking as a hard requirement, API platforms suit organizations prioritizing fast deployment and behavioral detection.

Does Microsoft Defender for Office 365 provide enough protection on its own?

For known malware, generic phishing, and mass spam, yes, especially now that Plan 1 ships in Microsoft 365 E3 as of July 2026. For targeted business email compromise and vendor impersonation, no. Defender's detection is fundamentally content and signature-oriented; sophisticated BEC emails often contain no malicious link or attachment for that model to catch. Most organizations that have experienced a real BEC incident end up layering a behavioral tool like Abnormal AI on top of Defender rather than replacing it.

Why isn't pricing public for most email security platforms?

Email security pricing scales with mailbox count, feature tier, and negotiated enterprise discounts that vary widely by deal size, so most vendors (Proofpoint, Mimecast, Abnormal AI, Material Security) quote custom pricing rather than publishing a rate card. Microsoft is the exception because Defender for Office 365 rides on standardized Microsoft 365 per-user licensing. When evaluating quote-based vendors, ask for pricing at your actual mailbox count early in the sales process rather than relying on published list prices, which third-party benchmarks suggest can differ substantially from what large enterprises actually negotiate.

Do I still need a dedicated email security tool if I already pay for Microsoft 365 E5?

E5 includes Defender for Office 365 Plan 2, which adds Attack Simulation Training and Automated Investigation and Response on top of Plan 1's filtering, and is a meaningfully stronger baseline than E3 alone. It still is not purpose-built behavioral detection for BEC and vendor impersonation the way Abnormal AI is. Whether E5's Plan 2 is sufficient depends on your threat history: organizations with no history of targeted fraud attempts often find it adequate; organizations that have already been targeted by wire fraud typically add a dedicated layer regardless of E5 licensing.

What is business email compromise (BEC) and why do gateways struggle with it?

BEC is an attack where a criminal impersonates a trusted party (an executive, a vendor, a known contact) to convince an employee to take a harmful action, most often a wire transfer or a change to banking details, using a well-written email that contains no malicious link, no attachment, and often no obviously spoofed domain. Traditional gateway filtering works by inspecting content for known-bad indicators (malicious URLs, malware signatures, blocklisted domains), and a payload-free BEC email frequently has none of those, which is why the FBI's IC3 has consistently ranked BEC among the costliest categories of cybercrime by reported dollar loss. Behavioral platforms like Abnormal AI address this by baselining normal communication patterns and flagging deviations instead of relying on content inspection alone.

Is Mimecast's mailbox continuity feature actually necessary if I'm already on Microsoft 365?

It depends on your outage tolerance. Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace both carry strong uptime SLAs and multi-region redundancy, so extended platform-wide outages are rare. For most organizations, that native reliability is sufficient and Mimecast Continuity is redundant cost. For organizations where even a short email outage has direct business impact (trading operations, time-sensitive customer support, legal deadlines), Mimecast's continuity layer provides a real fallback that Microsoft and Google don't offer as a distinct product.

About the author

Deepak Gupta is the founder and creator of LoginRadius, a customer identity platform he built and scaled to over a billion users. He is now the founder of GrackerAI, a GEO platform for B2B SaaS and cybersecurity teams, and has spent more than 15 years building identity and security products.

Related Comparisons

Insider Threat Management

Top 5 Insider Threat Management (ITM) Tools of 2026: DTEX vs Proofpoint vs the Rest

5 tools compared

NGFW / Firewall

Top 5 NGFW (Next-Generation Firewall) Platforms of 2026: Palo Alto vs Fortinet vs Check Point vs Cisco vs Juniper

5 tools compared

Data Loss Prevention

Top 5 DLP (Data Loss Prevention) Tools of 2026: Purview vs Forcepoint vs the Rest

5 tools compared

Security Awareness Training

Top 5 Security Awareness Training Platforms of 2026

5 tools compared