10 Best QR Code Phishing Simulation Tools for Awareness Managers: Mobile Tracking, Printed Campaigns, and Pricing Compared

Imagine managing awareness for 400 employees across 3 offices. Your next campaign will send 200 staff a document-sharing email with a QR code. Facilities also wants to test 6 approved poster locations. Both exercises involve a phone, but they will produce very different evidence.

The email may contain a code associated with a recipient. A shared poster may tell you that its destination was opened without proving which person opened it. Neither result automatically means someone entered credentials. If the report merges those events into one failure rate, your managers can draw the wrong conclusion.

Threatcop is our first shortlist recommendation for awareness managers who want QR phishing exercises connected to employee assessment and relevant follow-up learning. Compare its TSAT and TLMS workflow with the alternatives below, especially on cross-device measurement, reporting, and the work needed after a campaign.

This guide compares 10 tools and buying paths. Product and pricing sources were checked on October 21, 2026. Individual customer review dates appear alongside the quoted evidence.

Quick verdict: which QR code phishing simulation tools should you compare?

• Start with Threatcop when you need QR-based scenarios, employee risk assessment, and targeted education in a continuing awareness program. Request the complete participant-to-manager workflow.
• Compare KnowBe4 and Keepnet when printed QR campaigns are a requirement. Their documentation explicitly addresses physical placements; confirm how location events differ from named employee results.
• Evaluate Microsoft Defender for Office 365 when you already have suitable licensing and want QR payloads within Attack simulation training. Check the current entitlement and validate the live simulation flow.
• Include Proofpoint and Cofense when extending an existing phishing-awareness program may be simpler than introducing another platform. Separate simulation from threat-detection and response products.
• Consider Hoxhunt, KeenSec, usecure, and SMARTFENSE for their documented QR learning or customization paths. Distinguish an email-delivered exercise, a shared educational sticker, and an individually attributed simulation.
• Require separate event definitions. A destination visit, a data-entry action, a report, and a completed lesson answer different questions. Do not buy a QR feature without inspecting the resulting evidence.

These recommendations describe buyer fit rather than customer ratings or results from hands-on product testing. Give every finalist the same scenario, required employee action, and reporting question before comparing demonstrations.

What should QR phishing simulation software actually measure?

A QR code is a way to carry a destination or other information. In a simulation, the important questions concern how the code reaches the employee, what happens on the scanning device, and which events the platform can observe.

An email with a personalized QR image and a poster in a shared corridor should not be evaluated with identical assumptions. The first has a defined recipient population. The second may have an uncertain audience, repeated visits, and people outside the intended group.

Separate 5 events before reviewing a dashboard

A platform may use “scan” as a convenient label for a destination request. Ask for the operational definition. A camera can recognize a code and show a preview without the employee opening the destination. A server generally needs a request or another supported signal to record an event.

This distinction does not make the tool unusable. It tells you what the metric represents and how to describe the result accurately.

Distinguish a recipient token from confirmed identity

A personalized code can associate an event with the original recipient’s campaign record. That does not prove the same person opened it if the email, image, or document was forwarded.

Use a controlled forwarding test during the evaluation. Ask where the resulting event appears and whether the report indicates uncertainty. A token-based result can still be useful, provided managers understand its meaning.

For a shared poster, begin with location-level results unless the provider demonstrates a suitable, approved identity method. Do not infer an employee identity from an IP address, phone type, or approximate location alone.

Compare each platform’s failure label with your learning objective

KnowBe4’s email QR test guide, updated September 22, 2026, describes unique links per recipient and records a QR scan as a failure, while also exposing data-entry results. That is a platform event definition; it is not the same claim as confirmed credential theft.

Ask every finalist how its failure label maps to your intended behavior. Preserve the underlying events when preparing a management summary. Otherwise, two providers can show different failure rates because they classify the same action differently.

Keep simulation and QR threat detection separate

A simulator teaches and assesses employee behavior. A protective email or web product analyzes or blocks threats. The same company may offer both, but purchasing one does not automatically include the other.

Avoid a claim that QR codes bypass every filter. Security products can inspect QR content, and the protections on the destination device also matter. Your training requirement is to prepare people for the suspicious requests that do reach them, while preserving the rest of the security controls.

Threatcop’s QR phishing guide provides supporting context for these exercises. Use the comparison below to choose the program and evidence that fit your organization.

Which 10 QR code phishing simulation tools deserve a demonstration?

The shortlist includes platforms with explicit QR simulation or learning evidence. Physical placement, digital delivery, reporting, and participant identity are separate capabilities; confirm each one required for your purchase.

1. Threatcop: best starting point for connecting QR exercises with targeted learning

Threatcop’s QR simulation guidance describes invoice-access, Microsoft 365 login, document-preview, and payment-verification lures. It identifies engagement, reporting, and device information where known as useful assessment data. TSAT supplies the simulation path and TLMS supports relevant education.

Best for: awareness managers who want to use QR results to guide employee assessment and follow-up.

Pricing: request TSAT, TLMS, population, required delivery formats, customization, reporting, and support in one scoped proposal.

Demonstration: follow an approved QR lure from email to phone, captured result, employee assessment, and learning assignment. Ask the administrator to produce a role or department report.

Confirm before buying: the event definitions, identity handling across devices, forwarded-code behavior, and any printed-campaign requirement. Do not assume a public digital example establishes every physical-campaign feature.

Choose Threatcop when the demonstrated assessment-and-learning cycle fits your program. Make a mandatory reporting or delivery requirement a condition of selection.

2. KnowBe4: best for a documented physical QR campaign lifecycle

KnowBe4’s Physical QR Code Phishing Campaigns Guide, updated January 27, 2026, describes downloadable posters, named locations, landing pages, scan and data-entry events, and CSV export.

Best for: teams that need to evaluate QR codes encountered in an approved physical setting.

Pricing: confirm the subscription containing your required physical tests and learning features. Published US seat prices are discussed below.

Demonstration: create a location, inspect the poster, open its safe destination, and review the recorded event and export.

Confirm before buying: location and device details are not automatically a named employee result. Inspect the actual evidence.

The guide also describes an explicit campaign start and end. Ending the campaign disables its associated codes, and an ended campaign cannot be restarted. Include retirement and poster removal in the operating plan rather than treating printing as the final step.

3. Microsoft Defender for Office 365: best for checking an existing native entitlement

Microsoft’s payload documentation supports QR insertion for specified Attack simulation training techniques. It describes dynamically generated simulation codes and recommends validating the end-to-end flow.

Best for: Microsoft 365 teams with appropriate licensing that want a native starting point.

Pricing: Attack simulation training requires eligible licensing, including Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 or a qualifying subscription such as Microsoft 365 E5. Confirm your actual entitlement.

Demonstration: run a controlled simulation with the selected payload and inspect the result after the mobile interaction.

Confirm before buying: a test email does not reproduce every aspect of the live simulation’s dynamic QR behavior. Validate the actual campaign path, training, reporting, and permissions.

Use the native option when it meets the requirement without unnecessary additional work. If you need printed campaigns or another capability, request evidence rather than assume that an email QR payload supplies it.

4. Keepnet: best for comparing a dedicated quishing simulator

Keepnet’s Quishing Simulator documents customizable QR scenarios, digital and physical campaign possibilities, reporting, and learning-system connections. Its physical examples include hard-copy QR placements.

Best for: buyers who want to evaluate QR as a defined part of a broader multi-channel program.

Pricing: request the relevant products, population, training, services, and reporting. Its pricing page explains that products can be purchased separately.

Demonstration: use the delivery mode you actually require, then review the captured action, learning, and administrator report.

Confirm before buying: whether the proposed quote includes the learning library, campaign operation, required exports, and any assistance with physical placements. A dedicated simulator name does not establish every part of the program.

For printed exercises, ask how codes are separated by location and retired after the campaign. For digital exercises, test attribution after the lure moves to another device or recipient.

5. Proofpoint: best for extending an existing awareness program with QR practice

Proofpoint’s QR simulation introduction, published May 7, 2024, describes prebuilt QR email templates and difficulty-based progression within its awareness offering.

Best for: organizations already using Proofpoint that want relevant QR exercises and follow-up within their existing program.

Pricing: request the current awareness package, QR capabilities, learning, support, and reporting. Keep email protection and response components identifiable.

Demonstration: show the selected template on the target mail client, the mobile destination, and the resulting administrator evidence. Review how the next lesson or exercise is chosen.

Confirm before buying: a QR threat-detection product and a QR simulation subscription are different purchases. Also confirm current packaging rather than infer it from a historical launch announcement.

Compare the extension with Threatcop when the present program’s gaps include relevance, administration, or follow-up. Base the decision on the demonstrated workflow and complete quote.

6. Cofense PhishMe: best for QR practice within a phishing-focused training program

Cofense PhishMe lists QR-code phishing among its simulated attack types, alongside other phishing channels and learning capabilities.

Best for: security teams that want QR exercises within an established phishing-awareness and reporting program.

Pricing: request the simulation, learning, reporting, support, and service scope. Separate additional threat-defense products from the awareness purchase.

Demonstration: preview a role-relevant QR scenario and follow the participant through the requested action and supported reporting route. Ask what the administrator sees afterward.

Confirm before buying: physical poster generation, individual mobile attribution, and every remediation component should be demonstrated if required. A broad attack-type list does not settle those details.

The buying question is whether the available scenario and reporting fit your workforce. If your requirement is a shared physical-location exercise, make that explicit before comparing it with a personalized email campaign.

7. Hoxhunt: best for distinguishing continuous QR practice from printed awareness

Hoxhunt’s phishing simulation overview includes QR email exercises within its adaptive program. Its separate quishing guide, updated October 15, 2026, describes a printable sticker activity with a non-personalized landing-page option.

Best for: teams evaluating ongoing email QR practice or an additional physical-awareness activity.

Pricing: request the commercial simulation package and any custom delivery or reporting requirements. Keep a free educational activity distinct from the paid platform.

Demonstration: show which option is being proposed, how the employee experiences it, and what evidence is available afterward.

Confirm before buying: a shared sticker landing page is not the same as an individually attributed exercise. Its value may be education and discussion rather than a named-user failure report.

Choose the approach that answers your objective. A physical activity can be useful without being treated as a statistically comparable substitute for targeted email simulations.

8. KeenSec: best for a clearly described email/document-to-phone learning path

KeenSec’s quishing page describes QR lures in emails or documents, mobile learning, and separate scan, submission, and reporting information.

Best for: teams that want to evaluate a direct connection between a digital QR lure and a lesson on the scanning device.

Pricing: request the participant population, required modules, campaigns, reporting, support, and contract terms. Do not infer a public list price from the demonstration.

Demonstration: follow the QR destination on a phone, inspect the safe simulated action, and review how the result reaches the employee’s record and the administrator.

Confirm before buying: the supported identity method, event definitions, forwarded-code handling, and delivery formats. The described email/document path does not itself establish a physical poster workflow.

It is a relevant comparison when the mobile learning moment is central. If your principal requirement is office-location measurement, include that in the written scope before shortlisting.

9. usecure uPhish: best for a documented digital campaign setup

usecure’s QR simulation guide, dated September 5, 2025, describes selecting a landing page, choosing a QR email template, configuring recipients and delivery, and including optional inline learning.

Best for: teams that want to inspect a clear digital QR campaign workflow before comparing wider platform features.

Pricing: request the relevant uPhish and learning package, participant population, reporting, support, and contract scope.

Demonstration: show the template, actual mobile destination, supported learning, and individual result. Review the delivery configuration in your mail environment.

Confirm before buying: the guide describes Message Injection for Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace and SMTP fallback if injection fails. Ask how those different delivery outcomes appear in the report, and whether affected participants remain comparable.

This is an email-campaign option. Confirm a separate requirement for printed locations, identity across forwarding, or another delivery mode rather than infer it from QR support.

10. SMARTFENSE: best for evaluating customized QR email content

SMARTFENSE’s QR simulation page describes customizable QR email lures, destination-link and simulated data-entry measurement, and integration with platform reporting, audit logs, and user, group, and organizational risk views.

Best for: awareness teams that want to adapt the lure and review the result within a broader awareness environment.

Pricing: request the simulation, content, learning, administration, support, and reporting scope for your workforce.

Demonstration: modify a relevant template, follow the phone experience, and inspect how destination and data-entry events appear in the report.

Confirm before buying: the exact identity attribution, event definitions, supported delivery modes, and assistance needed to maintain custom content. A customizable email does not automatically establish a printed-campaign lifecycle.

Use the demonstration to test whether your administrator can make a useful change and interpret the result. Keep the required employee decision consistent when comparing it with Threatcop or another finalist.

How do Threatcop, Microsoft, and a physical QR campaign compare?

These 3 buying paths answer different questions: how to reinforce individual learning, how to use an existing native platform, and how to assess behavior at a shared physical location.

Start by identifying the evidence you need. In the opening example, the 200-person email group and the 6 poster locations should have separate objectives and reports, even if one provider runs both.

Use one digital scenario for all finalists

Give each provider an approved document-access lure with a QR code. State the safe behavior: question the unexpected request, use the approved access route, and report suspicious content.

Then inspect the mobile experience, destination request, simulated data action, reporting, learning assignment, and manager output. This prevents an attractive poster demonstration from being compared with a more demanding personalized digital exercise.

Repeat with one controlled forwarding test. You are evaluating attribution and reporting behavior, not trying to create an elaborate adversarial campaign.

Keep a physical objective separate

For a poster, the objective might be to assess whether staff question an unusual QR request and know how to report it. You may also want to learn whether the reporting team can locate and retire the material promptly.

That can be useful without a named employee score. If the platform only supports location counts, design the evaluation around location evidence. Avoid forcing individual remediation from data that does not establish identity.

Keep an adequate existing tool when it meets the requirement

A new vendor is justified by a gap it resolves. If your current platform supports the required QR experience, clear reporting, relevant learning, and sustainable administration, an additional purchase may add little.

Ask the awareness owner to run one complete cycle before deciding. If the result still leaves manual reconciliation, missing learning, or unavailable delivery, compare the alternatives against those specific gaps. A broad claim of being more modern is not enough to justify migration.

What should you test on phones, forwarded messages, and printed posters?

A QR campaign introduces several paths between the original lure and the recorded event. Your evaluation should cover the paths your employees actually use rather than a single carefully prepared sales demonstration.

Use approved test participants and harmless material. The objective is to understand measurement and learning, while retaining normal protections on mail clients and devices.

Run 7 controlled checks before broad deployment

A failed preview, a blocked destination, or a broken page is not a successful awareness result. Record technical delivery problems separately and decide whether the affected participant was meaningfully exposed.

Ask how automated traffic is handled

Security scanners, link inspection, or other automated requests can affect destination logs. Ask the provider how it identifies and filters non-human activity, what remains uncertain, and whether the administrator can inspect the evidence.

Do not require the vendor to weaken production security so the dashboard looks cleaner. A safe test should preserve your defenses while making the measurement limitations visible. If the only available metric mixes automated and human traffic, state that constraint in the report.

Check the learning page on the actual device

Review readability, navigation, captions where relevant, and the action needed to finish the lesson. An employee using a phone should not encounter a desktop-only page with tiny controls or an unclear return path.

Also test accessibility and language needs. A campaign should assess the intended security decision rather than penalize someone because the learning page or code placement is inaccessible. Provide an approved alternative when necessary and record the different delivery conditions.

Make reporting possible without following the QR destination

For email, the participant should know how to report the original suspicious message. For a physical placement, staff need an approved way to describe or identify the location without opening the destination.

Do not make a suspicious QR code the only route to reporting that same code. Coordinate the process with the receiving team and check that reports include enough context to find the material. A report that reaches an unattended queue is a program gap worth discovering during the pilot.

What do verified reviews reveal about scenarios, reports, and follow-up?

Reviews help you decide what to inspect during a demonstration. The excerpts below concern relevant platform experience, rather than independently measured QR attribution accuracy or a controlled comparison of QR tools.

Akshat V. is a Cyber Security Engineer at a company with 50 or fewer employees. G2 labels the review validated and collected through a G2 invitation without a G2 incentive. The reviewer describes understandable simulations and useful reporting. Confirm the QR-specific path rather than treating general praise as a feature test.

raktim p. is an Admin at a 51–1,000 employee company. G2 labels the review validated and organic, without invitation or incentive. The review discusses examples and modification scope. Ask to preview the scenario you intend to use and the changes your administrator can make.

Ernesto M. is an IT Security Engineer at a 51–1,000 employee organization. G2 labels the review current-user, validated, and incentivized through a G2 invitation. The reviewer praises campaign and report administration and asks awareness vendors for more company-related video customization. That is a useful editing question, rather than proof that every current package lacks customization.

The anonymous TrustRadius reviewer is a Manager in Information Technology at a 51–200 employee consumer-goods company. The vetted, verified review is incentivized. It praises automation while describing friction modifying existing campaigns and managing multiple Microsoft 365 tenants. The named access level is historical Gold and Platinum; verify current behavior rather than apply that package label to today’s plans.

Ask for a reference using your delivery model

A customer reference for email QR exercises may not resolve questions about printed-location reporting. Ask for experience with the same delivery, participant scale, learning requirements, and operating arrangement you plan to buy.

Discuss what the customer still does manually: editing templates, checking delivery, interpreting results, assigning learning, preparing a management report, or removing campaign material. A concrete account of recurring work is more useful than a general endorsement.

How should awareness managers compare QR simulation pricing?

Most purchases cover a broader awareness or security product. A QR feature may be included, but you still need to compare the employee population, contract, content, delivery, support, and administrator effort.

For the 400-person organization in the opening example, a 200-person pilot does not automatically mean 200-seat commercial eligibility. Confirm whether pricing covers the pilot group, the entire workforce, a minimum licensed population, or a defined engagement.

Use one scope sheet for every proposal

Specify any need for physical campaigns before requesting a quote. Otherwise, one provider may price a simple digital exercise while another includes location planning, printing support, and a facilitated review.

Compare published 100-seat prices without treating them as QR-only fees

KnowBe4’s US pricing page, checked October 21, 2026, labels its displayed rates May 2026. At 51–100 seats, Foundation is $2.13 and Advanced $3.40 per seat per month, on a 3-year term.

For 100 employees, those rates produce $2,556 and $4,080 annually, or $7,668 and $12,240 across the displayed term, before taxes, discounts, services, or other charges. Confirm the package containing your required tests, content, and reporting.

Microsoft’s US Defender for Office 365 page, checked October 21, 2026, displays Plan 2 at $5 per user per month, paid yearly. At 100 users, that is $6,000 annually for the wider security subscription, not a standalone QR simulation fee. Check prerequisite licensing and any existing entitlement before calculating incremental cost.

These figures do not establish a value winner. A broader security subscription and an awareness platform include different capabilities. Request the same requirements from Threatcop and other finalists, then compare complete scope and remaining work.

Include staff capacity and physical-campaign effort

Suppose your administrator spends 3 hours preparing and checking a digital campaign, 2 hours reviewing results, and 1 hour preparing follow-up. At a planning rate of $80 per hour, the 6 hours represent $480 of staff capacity.

If 6 physical placements each require 15 minutes to install and 15 minutes to remove, that adds 3 hours, or $240 at the same planning rate. The combined example is 9 hours and $720, before software, printing, travel, or additional review.

Measure these tasks during the pilot. A provider may remove some work through automation or services, while Facilities and the internal process owner retain other responsibilities. Treat released time as capacity rather than automatically claiming a cash saving.

How can you evaluate a QR simulation pilot without misleading failure rates?

A proposed 4-week pilot can help you test delivery, measurement, learning, and recurring workload. Adjust the schedule to approvals, employee availability, and the physical setting. It is an evaluation framework, not a universal deployment commitment.

Define mandatory requirements first. A tool that cannot support your required delivery or reporting should not win because it scores well on unrelated features.

Use a 100-point buyer scorecard

The weights are suggested procurement priorities, not ratings assigned to the vendors. Change them when your objective differs. A physical-awareness activity may reasonably place less weight on named-user attribution and more on location handling.

Run 4 stages with the right owners

For a physical campaign, retain a placement list, responsible local contact, and removal date. For a digital campaign, retain the target population, delivery result, and scenario version. Those details make the report easier to interpret after the campaign ends.

Work through the digital denominator

Suppose 200 people are targeted, 190 receive the message, and 38 unique recipient records show a qualifying destination visit after automated traffic is handled. That is 20% of delivered recipients, while 10 targeted employees did not receive the exercise.

If 8 records show a simulated data action, that is 4.2% of delivered recipients and 21.1% of the 38 visiting records. Label the denominator each time. The second percentage answers how often a recorded visit progressed, rather than the risk level of the whole workforce.

Keep the attribution limitation visible when forwarded codes can affect recipient records. Also report suspicious-message reports separately. Do not classify every person without a recorded visit as having recognized and resisted the lure.

Do not invent a physical exposure denominator

Suppose a shared code receives 24 destination requests. You cannot calculate an employee scan rate by dividing 24 by everyone assigned to that office unless exposure, repeat visits, automated activity, and audience identity are properly established.

A location report can instead show observed requests, recorded data actions, reports received, and the time needed to remove the material. If you need an exposure estimate, agree a suitable observation method and describe its limitations before running the exercise.

The same principle applies to comparisons over time. Moving a poster from a quiet corridor to reception changes the opportunity to encounter it. A higher event count does not automatically mean employees became less careful.

What can go wrong when a QR campaign moves into the physical workplace?

Printed material persists. It can be photographed, moved, covered, or left in place after an administrator considers the campaign finished. Plan that lifecycle before purchasing a physical capability.

For the opening example’s 6 locations, give each placement a named owner and a removal check. This is a manageable operational task, but it belongs in the program rather than being left to whoever printed the posters.

Keep placement and reporting coordinated

Use approved internal locations and avoid material that could confuse customers, visitors, or people outside the intended audience. Coordinate with Facilities and the relevant local owner, and preserve access to genuine business and safety information.

Give the reporting team enough context to identify the exercise while still following the normal escalation process. Decide who can stop it and how an unintended recipient or participant concern will be handled.

A useful campaign can reveal whether staff report a suspicious placement and whether the organization responds. That process result may matter as much as the number of destination visits.

Avoid collecting real secrets

Use safe simulated actions and approved test data. Do not require real passwords, payment details, or confidential records to demonstrate that someone continued toward a risky request.

Ask the provider what fields are stored, what is discarded, who can access the results, and how retention and deletion work. Your privacy and security owners should assess the proposed arrangement for the workforce and locations involved.

A convincing page is not a reason to collect more information than the learning objective needs. The result should be interpretable without exposing a real account or financial transaction.

Confirm what happens after a code is retired

Test an old printed code after the controlled campaign ends. Ask whether it becomes inactive, displays an educational page, or follows another documented behavior. Record what the provider actually supports.

Then remove or replace the material and confirm the placement list is closed. A dashboard status alone does not prove that posters have left the workplace. If the campaign material is reusable, establish how the next version is distinguished from the retired one.

Which QR simulation approach fits your awareness program?

Choose the workflow that closes the specific gap. A broader platform is useful when it improves assessment, relevant learning, and administration. A native capability or focused exercise can be sufficient when it already supplies the evidence you need.

What should you ask Threatcop to show first?

Ask Threatcop’s security awareness team to demonstrate a QR-based document or invoice scenario, the participant’s mobile experience, and the exact events captured afterward.

Then ask for the assessment, relevant learning, and manager report. Include a forwarded-code check and any physical-campaign requirement in the request. The purpose is to see what the platform records directly, what remains uncertain, and what your administrator must review.

Book a Threatcop demonstration with your participant population, required delivery, current mail environment, and reporting questions. A useful proposal should connect the QR exercise to a repeatable learning program and a workload your team can sustain.

FAQs about QR code phishing simulation tools

Sara Abraham

Cyber Security Specialist

Department: Compliance, Threatcop

Sara Abraham is a Cyber Security Specialist at Threatcop, where her extensive expertise in the field is instrumental in strengthening the company’s cyber security initiatives. She is a key contributor to the company’s mission of providing top-notch security solutions.

Sara Abraham

Cyber Security SpecialistDepartment: Compliance, ThreatcopSara Abraham is a Cyber Security Specialist at Threatcop, where her extensive expertise in the field is instrumental in strengthening the company's cyber security initiatives. She is a key contributor to the company's mission of providing top-notch security solutions.