Material

Name: Material
Brand: Material Security
Rating: 4.8 (55 reviews)

Leader

Unified detection and response for Google Workspace and Microsoft 365

Est 2017|Valuation $1.1B|Raised $162M|58 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 8K|Web traffic 8K|FTEs 86|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsEmail Security Secure Email Gateway

Published Oct 24, 2026

01Common complaints

Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient
- Very small organizations (for example, under ~50 employees) with limited security staff and budget may find native M365/Workspace controls or an integrated email security suite more appropriate.
Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior
- Organizations requiring explicit, publicly documented ISO certifications or specific regional data residency guarantees (not publicly documented in the sources reviewed) may prefer vendors that provide those artifacts openly.
Technical requirements that this product cannot meet
- Organizations that require a classic MX-based gateway architecture with deep mailflow control, legacy quarantining, journaling constraints, or complex on-prem mail routing should evaluate traditional SEGs.
Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate
- If Material is deployed in addition to an existing SEG, total cost may exceed budget targets; in those cases, buyers should consider consolidation options with large-suite vendors depending on requirements.
Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short
- Organizations seeking a single product that includes integrated security awareness training and phishing simulation may prefer vendors that bundle those capabilities.
- Source:
  - https://www.reddit.com/r/msp/comments/1gh5oym/avanan_vs_ironscales/
Red flags in the buying process (e.g., requires annual commitment, no free trial)
- Third-party listings indicate annual billing for public tiers; buyers should confirm contract minimums, trial availability, renewal terms, and enterprise pricing during procurement.
- Source:
  - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews
Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor
- Vendor public pages focus on positioning and benefits; explicit vendor-authored limitation lists were not identified in the accessible material captured.
Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - note estimated dates if available
- No publicly documented roadmap dates were found in the sources captured for this report.
Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?)
- Scale limitations are not publicly disclosed in the accessible sources.
Security or compliance gaps
- ISO 27001/27017/27018 certifications and specific data residency options are not publicly confirmed in the accessible materials; buyers should request Trust Center artifacts when evaluating compliance requirements.
- Source:
  - https://trust.material.security/
Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews
- Reviewers described usability trade-offs when searching historical emails under restrictive controls as a concrete limitation.
- Source:
  - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews
API limitations or integration constraints
- The product is oriented around Google Workspace and Microsoft 365; organizations outside those ecosystems may find it inapplicable.
- Source:
  - https://material.security/

- Company sizes or stages where this product is overkill or insufficient - Very small organizations (for example, under ~50 employees) with limited security staff and budget may find native M365/Workspace controls or an integrated email security suite more appropriate. - Industries or use cases where competitors are clearly superior - Organizations requiring explicit, publicly documented ISO certifications or specific regional data residency guarantees (not publicly documented in the sources reviewed) may prefer vendors that provide those artifacts openly. - Technical requirements that this product cannot meet - Organizations that require a classic MX-based gateway architecture with deep mailflow control, legacy quarantining, journaling constraints, or complex on-prem mail routing should evaluate traditional SEGs. - Budget constraints that make alternatives more appropriate - If Material is deployed in addition to an existing SEG, total cost may exceed budget targets; in those cases, buyers should consider consolidation options with large-suite vendors depending on requirements. - Specific workflows or integrations where the product falls short - Organizations seeking a single product that includes integrated security awareness training and phishing simulation may prefer vendors that bundle those capabilities. - Source: - https://www.reddit.com/r/msp/comments/1gh5oym/avanan_vs_ironscales/ - Red flags in the buying process (e.g., requires annual commitment, no free trial) - Third-party listings indicate annual billing for public tiers; buyers should confirm contract minimums, trial availability, renewal terms, and enterprise pricing during procurement. - Source: - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews - Current limitations acknowledged by the vendor - Vendor public pages focus on positioning and benefits; explicit vendor-authored limitation lists were not identified in the accessible material captured. - Features on the roadmap (not yet available) - note estimated dates if available - No publicly documented roadmap dates were found in the sources captured for this report. - Scale limitations (at what volume/size does it break down?) - Scale limitations are not publicly disclosed in the accessible sources. - Security or compliance gaps - ISO 27001/27017/27018 certifications and specific data residency options are not publicly confirmed in the accessible materials; buyers should request Trust Center artifacts when evaluating compliance requirements. - Source: - https://trust.material.security/ - Technical debt or architectural limitations mentioned in reviews - Reviewers described usability trade-offs when searching historical emails under restrictive controls as a concrete limitation. - Source: - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews - API limitations or integration constraints - The product is oriented around Google Workspace and Microsoft 365; organizations outside those ecosystems may find it inapplicable. - Source: - https://material.security/

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a poor fit

Organizations with on-prem or hybrid mail systems requiring classic MX-based gateway controls and legacy routing may find a traditional SEG more appropriate.
Very small teams with limited operational capacity to tune and manage additional tooling may prefer bundled or simpler security suites.

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

Publicly available information on churn and reasons for leaving is limited in the sources reviewed.

02Why they buy

Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims)
- Reviewers cite the platform’s focus on post-delivery remediation and account compromise containment as operationally valuable in reducing analyst effort.
- Some reviewers described containment mechanics that increase friction for risky workflows, which reviewers identified as a defensive control approach.
- Source:
  - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews
Unique features and capabilities competitors lack
- Vendor materials present a unified approach spanning email, files, and account posture; determining whether these capabilities are unique requires a deeper technical comparison and bake-off.
- Source:
  - https://material.security/
Differentiation from competitors based on reviews
- Review content suggests organizations often use Material as an additional layer for defense-in-depth rather than as an outright SEG replacement.
- Source:
  - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews
Value propositions with evidence from case studies
- Vendor case studies report substantial reductions in analyst investigation time for specific customers; methodology and independent verification are not provided in the case studies.
- Source:
  - https://material.security/case-study/color
Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced)
- Established enterprise vendors (Proofpoint/Mimecast) offer long-standing feature sets and extensive third-party validation.
- Avanan/Check Point has established MSP traction and documented integration behaviors.
- Sources:
  - https://www.reddit.com/r/msp/comments/1srawme/alternative_to_avanan/

- Competitive advantages validated by customer feedback (not just vendor claims) - Reviewers cite the platform’s focus on post-delivery remediation and account compromise containment as operationally valuable in reducing analyst effort. - Some reviewers described containment mechanics that increase friction for risky workflows, which reviewers identified as a defensive control approach. - Source: - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews - Unique features and capabilities competitors lack - Vendor materials present a unified approach spanning email, files, and account posture; determining whether these capabilities are unique requires a deeper technical comparison and bake-off. - Source: - https://material.security/ - Differentiation from competitors based on reviews - Review content suggests organizations often use Material as an additional layer for defense-in-depth rather than as an outright SEG replacement. - Source: - https://www.g2.com/products/materialsecurity/reviews - Value propositions with evidence from case studies - Vendor case studies report substantial reductions in analyst investigation time for specific customers; methodology and independent verification are not provided in the case studies. - Source: - https://material.security/case-study/color - Areas where competitors clearly have advantages (be balanced) - Established enterprise vendors (Proofpoint/Mimecast) offer long-standing feature sets and extensive third-party validation. - Avanan/Check Point has established MSP traction and documented integration behaviors. - Sources: - https://www.reddit.com/r/msp/comments/1srawme/alternative_to_avanan/

Why customers chose this product over alternatives

Reviewers and vendor materials cite the platform’s emphasis on post-delivery remediation, account compromise containment, and unified coverage across email, files, and accounts as differentiators.
Sources:
- G2 product and seller pages
- Official vendor product overview and feature pages

03Field reports

Detailed customer success stories with metrics
- Color
  - Vendor-published claim: a large percentage reduction in phishing investigation time is reported in the case study. The case study does not include detailed methodology, baseline definitions, sample size, or independent validation; buyers should request measurement details.
  - Source:
    - Official vendor case study (Color)
- Mars
  - Case study material emphasizes improved visibility into email risk, policy violations, and facilitation of leadership reporting. The case study indicates a rapid pilot and security review.
  - Source:
    - Official vendor case study (Mars)
Implementation details and time to value
- Vendor materials describe API-based deployment and rapid pilots; purchasers should plan for policy tuning, user training, and integration testing as part of standard implementation timelines.
- Sources:
  - Official vendor product overview and documentation
  - Official vendor case study (Mars)
Challenges faced during adoption and how they were resolved
- Public case study excerpts do not provide detailed technical challenge logs. Buyers should request implementation plans and references that describe deployment challenges and resolutions.
Note when metrics are vendor-published without independent verification
- The case study metrics are vendor-published and should be validated with the vendor for methodology details and, where possible, corroborated with customer references.
- Source:
  - Official vendor case study (Color)
Mixed results or failed projects
- No publicly accessible failed implementation case studies were identified in the captured materials.

- Detailed customer success stories with metrics - Color - Vendor-published claim: a large percentage reduction in phishing investigation time is reported in the case study. The case study does not include detailed methodology, baseline definitions, sample size, or independent validation; buyers should request measurement details. - Source: - Official vendor case study (Color) - Mars - Case study material emphasizes improved visibility into email risk, policy violations, and facilitation of leadership reporting. The case study indicates a rapid pilot and security review. - Source: - Official vendor case study (Mars) - Implementation details and time to value - Vendor materials describe API-based deployment and rapid pilots; purchasers should plan for policy tuning, user training, and integration testing as part of standard implementation timelines. - Sources: - Official vendor product overview and documentation - Official vendor case study (Mars) - Challenges faced during adoption and how they were resolved - Public case study excerpts do not provide detailed technical challenge logs. Buyers should request implementation plans and references that describe deployment challenges and resolutions. - Note when metrics are vendor-published without independent verification - The case study metrics are vendor-published and should be validated with the vendor for methodology details and, where possible, corroborated with customer references. - Source: - Official vendor case study (Color) - Mixed results or failed projects - No publicly accessible failed implementation case studies were identified in the captured materials.

Overview of available review sources and accessibility

Gartner Peer Insights: Material-specific reviews were not accessible in the environment used for this review; general market pages were accessible.
G2: Multiple reviewer snippets are publicly visible and generally positive in the captured sample, but review volume appears limited and may present sampling bias.
TrustRadius: A small number of reviews is visible; detailed excerpts were limited in the captured content.
Reddit: Community discussion includes cautious or mixed perspectives.

- Gartner Peer Insights: Material-specific reviews were not accessible in the environment used for this review; general market pages were accessible. - G2: Multiple reviewer snippets are publicly visible and generally positive in the captured sample, but review volume appears limited and may present sampling bias. - TrustRadius: A small number of reviews is visible; detailed excerpts were limited in the captured content. - Reddit: Community discussion includes cautious or mixed perspectives.

Representative reviewer sentiments (paraphrased for neutral tone)

Some G2 reviewers reported that Material Security substantially improved their phishing investigation workflows and reduced manual effort.
Other reviewers noted trade-offs between security and usability, for example increased friction when searching or filtering historical email records under restrictive controls.
A Reddit community member observed that Material introduces new capabilities but that many organizations retain a traditional email security gateway in addition to Material.

- Some G2 reviewers reported that Material Security substantially improved their phishing investigation workflows and reduced manual effort. - Other reviewers noted trade-offs between security and usability, for example increased friction when searching or filtering historical email records under restrictive controls. - A Reddit community member observed that Material introduces new capabilities but that many organizations retain a traditional email security gateway in addition to Material.

Balance: positive and critical perspectives

Positive signals: reviewers cite post-compromise controls, automated triage, and remediation workflows as beneficial in reducing analyst workload.
Critical signals: limitations include usability trade-offs for historical email search and the practical tendency for some organizations to retain incumbent SEGs, resulting in an additive stack.
Note: Low volume of independently verifiable negative reviews limits the ability to weight criticism by frequency.

Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features)

Usability vs. security trade-offs when applying restrictive controls, affecting historical email filtering/search.
In practice, organizations often deploy Material alongside an existing SEG, which can increase complexity and cost.
Limited breadth of independently verifiable negative reviews in public review sites.
Sources:
- G2 product and seller pages
- Industry Reddit and community threads

Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available)

Vendor-published case study: A customer case study reports a substantial reduction in phishing investigation time in a named customer example; methodology and independent verification are not provided in the case study.
Sources:
- Official vendor case study

Customer pain points and frustrations mentioned in reviews

Restrictions that complicate historical email searching are repeatedly cited as a usability friction point.
Minor frustrations such as branding or module renaming have been mentioned in some reviewer comments.
Sources:
- G2 product and seller pages

Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase

Public information on deal-breakers is limited; procurement-level objections likely appear in private RFP discussions or negotiation notes not captured here.

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Inferred best fit: mid-market to enterprise organizations with moderate-to-large employee counts and revenues, with:
- Significant exposure to phishing/BEC and account takeover risk
- A cloud-first productivity stack (M365/Workspace)
- Security teams capable of operationalizing remediation workflows
Evidence: reviewer company sizes on G2 and vendor positioning.
Source:
- G2 product and seller pages

- Inferred best fit: mid-market to enterprise organizations with moderate-to-large employee counts and revenues, with: - Significant exposure to phishing/BEC and account takeover risk - A cloud-first productivity stack (M365/Workspace) - Security teams capable of operationalizing remediation workflows - Evidence: reviewer company sizes on G2 and vendor positioning. - Source: - G2 product and seller pages

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples)

Vendor case studies and customer listings reference organizations in consumer goods, healthcare technology, and software/design, e.g., Mars, Color, Figma.
Sources:
- Official vendor case studies and customer pages

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Decision makers: CISO, Head of Security, IT Director, Security Engineering / SecOps leadership.
End users: Security analysts responsible for phishing triage, IT administrators for M365/Google Workspace.

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Phishing, account compromise, post-delivery remediation, and sensitive data in email and files. Operational burden around user-reported phishing triage is also targeted.
Sources:
- Official vendor documentation
- G2 product pages and reviews

Qualification criteria: what makes a good fit

Heavy reliance on Google Workspace or Microsoft 365.
Desire to reduce analyst time spent on investigating clusters of similar phishing emails.
Need for defense-in-depth beyond perimeter blocking and willingness to accept some operational changes.

Real customer examples with company names when available

Mars, Color (vendor case studies)
Sources:
- Official vendor case studies and customer pages

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Material Security is an API-based security platform for Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 focused on detecting and remediating modern email attacks (including post-delivery cleanup) and reducing the impact of account compromise. The platform also provides controls for file security, DLP-like functions, and workspace posture/configuration risk management.
The vendor states the product aims to detect threats that native Google/Microsoft controls and legacy secure email gateways (SEGs) may not identify, and to provide automated user-report triage and remediation workflows.
Sources:
- Official vendor product pages

- Material Security is an API-based security platform for Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 focused on detecting and remediating modern email attacks (including post-delivery cleanup) and reducing the impact of account compromise. The platform also provides controls for file security, DLP-like functions, and workspace posture/configuration risk management. - The vendor states the product aims to detect threats that native Google/Microsoft controls and legacy secure email gateways (SEGs) may not identify, and to provide automated user-report triage and remediation workflows. - Sources: - Official vendor product pages

Target market and market positioning

Targeted at cloud-first organizations using Google Workspace and/or Microsoft 365 that seek a unified layer across email, accounts, files, and workspace risk rather than only inbound email filtering.
Reviews and vendor materials indicate Material is frequently deployed as an additional layer alongside an incumbent email security vendor rather than always replacing an existing SEG.
Sources:
- Official vendor product pages
- G2 product and seller pages
- Industry Reddit and community threads

- Targeted at cloud-first organizations using Google Workspace and/or Microsoft 365 that seek a unified layer across email, accounts, files, and workspace risk rather than only inbound email filtering. - Reviews and vendor materials indicate Material is frequently deployed as an additional layer alongside an incumbent email security vendor rather than always replacing an existing SEG. - Sources: - Official vendor product pages - G2 product and seller pages - Industry Reddit and community threads

Get a comprehensive analysis of Material including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Material

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a poor fit

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

02Why they buy

Why customers chose this product over alternatives

03Field reports

Overview of available review sources and accessibility

Representative reviewer sentiments (paraphrased for neutral tone)

Balance: positive and critical perspectives

Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features)

Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available)

Customer pain points and frustrations mentioned in reviews

Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples)

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Qualification criteria: what makes a good fit

Real customer examples with company names when available

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Target market and market positioning

How it compares

01Common complaints

Deal disqualifiers: what makes a poor fit

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

02Why they buy

Why customers chose this product over alternatives

03Field reports

Overview of available review sources and accessibility

Representative reviewer sentiments (paraphrased for neutral tone)

Balance: positive and critical perspectives

Common criticisms and complaints (support issues, bugs, missing features)

Specific outcomes customers achieved (with metrics when available)

Customer pain points and frustrations mentioned in reviews

Deal-breakers and reasons customers didn't purchase

04Best fit

Company sizes: specific employee counts and revenue ranges

Industries and verticals where adoption is strongest (with customer examples)

Roles and personas: decision makers AND end users

Pain points and challenges the product addresses

Qualification criteria: what makes a good fit

Real customer examples with company names when available

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

Target market and market positioning

How it compares