Compare 18 KnowBe4 alternatives for awareness managers: pricing, campaign control, and reporting, with a clear shortlist to evaluate before you switch.
The best KnowBe4 alternative gives the awareness manager a workable way to run campaigns, enroll new starters, assign relevant follow-up, and explain the results. The right comparison starts with the work your team needs to improve, then checks the platform, service model, and price that support it.
Picture an awareness manager responsible for 500 employees and twenty new starters in a month. A policy changes after training has launched. Finance asks for a department report, a learner needs an exclusion, and the CISO wants to know whether the latest simulation led to useful reinforcement. A new vendor needs to make those tasks easier without creating another reconciliation job.
Threatcop TSAT + TLMS is our recommended starting point for teams that want risk assessment connected to personalized learning and management reporting. Its US platform overview connects individual risk scores with AI-assigned training, tracking, and reminders. Threatcop has assessed 5.7 million+ employees, trained 4.8 million+ employees, and provides a 2,000+ content library across eight formats.
Hoxhunt, Proofpoint, Mimecast, MetaCompliance, Infosec IQ, and other providers offer different routes to the same operating questions. Some emphasize adaptive practice, some connect security signals to interventions, and others provide a managed program. Match the route to your team’s responsibilities.
Updated October 21, 2026. Published by Threatcop. Confirm current packages, services, usage allowances, and commercial terms in your proposal.
| Alternative | Strong buyer fit | Work to inspect | Commercial question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threatcop TSAT + TLMS | Assessment leading to relevant learning | Risk result, assignment, completion, department report | Are both products and required channels included? |
| Hoxhunt | Adaptive practice and reporting habits | Learner history, next exercise, report and coaching | Which capabilities and services are in the quote? |
| Proofpoint ZenGuide | Risk-informed enterprise learning | Adaptive groups, pathways, enrollment | Which connected products supply the required signals? |
| Mimecast Engage | Behavior-driven intervention | Risk group, targeted action, outcome | Which Engage configuration meets the brief? |
| MetaCompliance | Policy and awareness administration | Role targeting, policy lifecycle, campaign automation | Which modules and services are being purchased? |
| Infosec IQ | Custom learning and repeatable campaigns | Content revision, new-hire plan, reporting | Which subscription supports the required workflow? |
| Cofense | Phishing competency and employee reporting | Scenario readiness, report, reinforcement | Which training and response capabilities are included? |
| Keepnet | Modular simulation and human-risk tools | Required channels, outcome, learning handoff | Standalone product or package, and what usage? |
| usecure | Assessment-led training with a lean team | Knowledge gaps, AutoEnrol, progress | Direct IT or MSP terms, and which products? |
| Hook Security | Managed cadence for smaller teams | Program schedule, exceptions, reports | Small-team annual plan or larger Growth quote? |
| Huntress Managed SAT | Managed learning and phishing | Provider tasks and retained internal work | Current per-learner rate and service responsibilities? |
| Adaptive Security | Modern impersonation and custom training | Scenario, interaction, remediation | Required channels, training, and capacity? |
| NINJIO | Coaching based on emotional susceptibility | Simulation profile and related coaching | Which PHISH3D, AWARE, and SENSE components? |
| SoSafe | Personalized learning and broader program options | Learner context, content, reporting | Current Core or Advanced scope and US terms? |
| Phished | Adaptive practice with automated operation | Difficulty, cadence, scenario, follow-up | Training and simulation versus extra protection scope? |
| OutThink | Learning shaped by context and security signals | Role, knowledge, behavior, intervention | Required data connections and implementation? |
| Living Security | Risk-targeted training through playbooks | Trigger, assignment, reminder, completion | Training purchase or connected platform operation? |
| Microsoft Attack simulation training | Supported simulation within a qualifying Microsoft environment | Payload, audience, assignment, reporting | Do licenses and product scope meet the requirement? |
These options serve different operating needs. The table is a shortlist map rather than a customer-rating ranking, and it does not imply that every option replaces every product sold by KnowBe4.
Discover how Threatcop protects your workforce from modern cyber threats.
Define the purchase as the awareness and simulation program you need to run. If the current agreement also includes email security, incident response, compliance content, or other products, map their owners and replacement requirements separately before changing the contract.
KnowBe4’s current offering includes automated and adaptive capabilities. Its AIDA Orchestration guide, updated October 20, 2026, describes plans, group inclusion and exclusion, frequency controls, and personalized phishing and training. A comparison that treats KnowBe4 as manual-only would miss a relevant part of the decision.
Its US pricing table, dated May 2026 and checked October 21, 2026, presents SAT Foundation and SAT Advanced reference rates on three-year terms. Compare those current options with your actual agreement; older Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Diamond references do not automatically describe the proposed subscription.
| Current program question | Evidence to collect first | What a challenger should demonstrate |
|---|---|---|
| Is content hard to find or revise? | The actual lesson, revision request, and operator steps | Search, preview, approval, version handling, and affected learners |
| Do new starters need manual chasing? | Identity source, group rules, enrollment, reminders | A starter reaching the correct baseline and learning plan |
| Does follow-up match the employee’s behavior? | Simulation event and assignment reason | A relevant intervention and completion record |
| Are reports difficult to explain? | The report and the decision it fails to support | Clear population, outcomes, assignments, and exports |
| Does the subscription feel expensive? | Seats, products, service, term, and usage | A matched proposal and recurring workload |
| Is campaign administration the problem? | Changes, exclusions, exceptions, and reporting hours | Your operator completing the same tasks |
Give the incumbent the same brief. Sometimes the best decision is a different configuration or package; sometimes the pilot shows that a challenger offers a more practical operating model. The evidence should establish which situation applies.
“Too much admin” is a useful starting concern, but it does not identify the fix. Break it into tasks: maintaining users, selecting content, changing an assignment, checking delivery, correcting an event, and producing the report.
If the awareness manager spends three hours each month rebuilding a report, ask each vendor to produce that exact report from the same sample conditions. If the difficulty is changing live training, have the operator perform a controlled revision rather than discuss a general customization feature.
Threatcop Security Awareness Training provides employee assessment and risk visibility. TLMS provides learning, progress tracking, and reminders. Together, they are relevant when the awareness manager needs the assessment result to lead to a specific next action.
Best for: teams that want to connect simulation findings, personalized learning, and department-level evidence in a continuing program.
Pricing and control check: request a scoped quote for TSAT, TLMS, required channels, onboarding, reporting, and support. Ask your operator to assign or revise a lesson, handle a new starter, and produce the final report. If per-person simulation cadence or difficulty must change autonomously, demonstrate that exact capability separately from risk-based learning assignment.
Hoxhunt’s phishing-training product describes practice that adjusts difficulty, cadence, and scenarios, with immediate feedback and reporting reinforcement. Its current channel scope extends beyond email, including SMS, voice and callback, collaboration, and deepfake scenarios.
Best for: awareness programs centered on recurring employee practice and a usable reporting habit.
Pricing and control check: request the capabilities and service scope needed for your workforce. Demonstrate the next activity for two employees with different histories, then inspect the administrator’s controls and the reporting experience. Confirm the exact channel modes and usage in the proposal rather than assume all configurations are interchangeable.
Proofpoint’s human-risk education offering describes adaptive user grouping, enrollment, learning pathways, and simulations informed by attacks. It is relevant when existing security context should influence the learning program.
Best for: enterprise teams with a clear requirement for risk or threat information to shape assignments.
Pricing and control check: identify the learning product, connectors, and associated security subscriptions in the quote. Have the vendor show one supported signal changing an employee group or assignment, then produce the explanation. Include a correction task so the awareness manager can see what happens when the input is mistaken or outdated.
Mimecast Engage links risk visibility, targeted intervention, training, and AI-assisted simulation. It is worth evaluating when the program should respond to connected behavior rather than depend solely on a fixed course calendar.
Best for: teams that want awareness activities connected to their wider human-risk operation, particularly where Mimecast already has a role.
Pricing and control check: request the current Engage scope and integrations. Demonstrate a risk group, the action it produces, and the operator’s ability to review or change the outcome. Compare the proposed configuration rather than an older awareness-training feature list.
MetaCompliance combines awareness, phishing simulation, compliance management, and risk analytics. Its commercial specifications describe policy-lifecycle functions, role targeting, and annual campaign automation dependent on purchased modules.
Best for: organizations whose awareness manager also needs to administer policies and related evidence.
Pricing and control check: request the exact modules, implementation, and support. Demonstrate a policy being revised, targeted, delivered, and reflected in the appropriate employee record. Confirm whether the evidence represents acknowledgement, knowledge assessment, or training completion; those records answer different questions.
Infosec IQ’s program automation supports repeatable training and phishing workflows. It is a relevant option when the organization wants content flexibility alongside a structured campaign process.
Best for: awareness managers who need custom learning, new-hire enrollment, recurring activities, and reporting aligned to their own program.
Pricing and control check: request the current subscription that supports your reporting, content, and LMS requirements. Have your administrator change a course or campaign, add a starter, and produce the required department view. Assess the identity and reporting connections alongside the content experience.
Cofense’s PhishMe platform emphasizes demonstrated competency, scenario coverage, threat reporting, adaptive simulations, and reinforcement. That makes it relevant when the program needs to explain readiness beyond a raw click rate.
Best for: teams whose central requirement is phishing practice that supports employee reporting and measurable scenario readiness.
Pricing and control check: quote the required training, channels, and any response products separately where appropriate. Show a participant’s report, the resulting readiness record, and the follow-up activity. Confirm who handles a genuine threat reported through the same employee route.
Keepnet’s simulation platform describes personalized exercises across channels, behavior reporting, and targeted training connections. Its modular buying options can suit teams adding a capability or reconsidering the whole program.
Best for: managers who need a specific simulation channel, reporting function, or broader platform combination.
Pricing and control check: compare a standalone proposal with the relevant package. Demonstrate the required scenario, the employee response, the administrative record, and the learning handoff. Define message or call units, services, and integration ownership before comparing the subscription with KnowBe4.
usecure uLearn starts with a 15-minute, 36-question assessment across twelve areas and uses AutoEnrol to prioritize learning around gaps. Its wider offering includes phishing, policy, and breach-related capabilities.
Best for: teams that want an understandable assessment-to-learning route with repeatable administration.
Pricing and control check: use the terms applicable to your organization; direct IT and MSP subscriptions have different commercial arrangements. Demonstrate a new starter, the assessment result, the next lessons, and the progress report. If continuing behavior-adaptive simulation is mandatory, evaluate it separately from knowledge-gap assignment.
Hook’s Autopilot model describes a managed cadence of learning, phishing, reinforcement, and reporting. It is relevant when the team would rather delegate routine program operation than gain another console to maintain.
Best for: smaller organizations and service-led programs that want recurring activities with defined provider responsibility.
Pricing and control check: the live pricing page, checked October 21, 2026, lists Micro at $499 annually for up to ten seats and Starter at $1,199 annually for eleven to sixty. Growth, for sixty-one or more seats, is quoted. Confirm which exceptions your team can manage and how the provider handles a content or schedule change.
Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training combines story-based learning, phishing exercises, reinforcement, and reporting within a managed program. It is relevant when the internal constraint is program-running capacity.
Best for: awareness owners who need help maintaining a consistent learning and simulation program.
Pricing and control check: its SAT pricing page describes a per-learner monthly subscription billed annually. Request the current rate and direct or partner scope. Show how a late starter, mistaken assignment, or employee complaint is handled and identify the responsibilities retained by your organization.
Adaptive Security’s feature page lists custom learning generation, role-based tracks, modern impersonation scenarios, recurring campaigns, and remediation capabilities.
Best for: teams that want to assess current social engineering scenarios and create learning around their own context or policies.
Pricing and control check: obtain the SMB or enterprise proposal with required channels and training identified. Have the operator create and revise one approved scenario, inspect the outcome, and show the resulting intervention. Establish which decisions are automated and which require review; customization alone does not establish adaptive difficulty or cadence.
NINJIO PHISH3D describes simulation difficulty adjustment and susceptibility profiles. NINJIO SENSE uses those profiles to direct coaching around social engineering triggers.
Best for: teams that want the follow-up to address why an employee responded to a lure.
Pricing and control check: confirm the PHISH3D, AWARE, and SENSE scope, channels, reports, and support. Demonstrate a result changing a profile, the coaching it produces, and the manager’s view of later practice. Keep the profile, assignment, completion, and subsequent behavior distinct in the report.
SoSafe’s package page presents Core and Advanced options, personalized and gamified learning, assessments, simulation, and reporting. The live page, checked October 21, 2026, provides an entry reference of €625 per month billed annually, including fifty seats.
Best for: teams comparing a learning foundation with a more targeted program across roles and contexts.
Pricing and control check: request the current package and US commercial terms for your employee count. Demonstrate the assignment for two roles, a content change, and the resulting progress record. Avoid transferring an entry package’s currency or seat allowance into an unrelated larger deployment.
Phished’s simulation offering describes difficulty, cadence, and scenarios adapting to the learner, alongside automated planning, sending, and follow-up.
Best for: teams that want continuing practice while reducing routine campaign-management work.
Pricing and control check: identify the training and simulation scope separately from extra guidance or protection capabilities. Demonstrate the next activity for different learner histories, the administrator’s override or exclusion path, and the final report. Ask how the system handles an employee whose department or eligibility changes during the program.
OutThink’s self-adapting training describes using role, knowledge, motivation, organizational context, and behavior to shape learning. Its listed inputs include directory and security-tool information.
Best for: teams that want learning decisions informed by broader context and can maintain the required data connections.
Pricing and control check: quote the training and integration work together. Demonstrate which input caused an assignment, how the operator can investigate it, and what happens when the input is corrected. Include permissions and continuing data ownership in the administrative evaluation.
Living Security’s training product combines story-based content, custom-content creation, and playbooks that assign learning from risk events. Completion feeds back into its human-risk record.
Best for: teams that want learning delivered through repeatable risk-based actions rather than only a campaign calendar.
Pricing and control check: request the training and platform capabilities needed for the workflow. Show a trigger, the relevant assignment, a reminder that skips someone who finished, and the updated record. Confirm which integrations and actions are included in the proposed purchase.
Microsoft’s Attack simulation training documentation requires qualifying Microsoft 365 E5 or Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 licensing. It describes running scenarios in the Defender portal and notes reduced reporting functionality for on-premises mailboxes.
Best for: teams evaluating supported simulation needs within an existing Microsoft environment.
Pricing and control check: verify licensing for the users in scope, configuration work, learning requirements, and reporting. This is a narrower option in the comparison: demonstrate the required program rather than assume a native capability replaces every awareness, content, channel, or human-risk requirement.
Compare the recurring workflow, including what happens after a plan has already started. A campaign editor is useful, but the manager also needs to understand whether a change affects future messages, existing assignments, completed learners, or the evidence retained for an audit.
For the 500-person program, use one policy revision and twenty new starters as the common demonstration brief. Keep the same employee situations across vendors so the team can compare work rather than presentation quality.
| Administrative task | What to demonstrate | Why it changes the buying decision |
|---|---|---|
| Find and approve content | Search, preview, role fit, review, and approval | A large library needs a usable selection process |
| Revise launched learning | Change the content and inspect affected learners | Completion and version history must remain understandable |
| Add new starters | Sync or import, eligibility, baseline, assignment | Routine onboarding should not depend on manual chasing |
| Exclude an employee | Apply the reason and inspect reminders and reports | Leave or ineligibility should not become a misleading failure |
| Change a campaign | Update audience, timing, or scenario under approved controls | The manager needs predictable effects on the live program |
| Correct an event | Investigate and resolve a mistaken outcome | Automated clicks or bad mapping can distort risk |
| Produce a department report | Show population, outcomes, learning, and exceptions | Leaders need an explanation they can act on |
| Repeat the cycle | Prepare the next campaign with current users | The operating model must work after initial setup |
Let your own operator complete the tasks. Vendor assistance is useful, but record when routine work depends on support, an export, or a second system. Those dependencies belong in both the implementation plan and the cost comparison.
Threatcop is a useful starting point when assessment and learning need to connect. KnowBe4 remains relevant when configured orchestration meets the requirement. A managed provider changes who performs routine planning and operation.
| Decision | Threatcop pilot | KnowBe4 baseline | Managed-program pilot |
|---|---|---|---|
| What assigns learning? | Demonstrate the risk-to-training path | Inspect the actual plan and rules | Identify provider and platform decisions |
| Who changes content? | Test approved customization and revision | Test the required edit in the licensed configuration | Confirm change process and turnaround |
| Who handles starters? | Show user mapping and assignment | Check current enrollment and group behavior | Show handoff, timing, and exceptions |
| Who explains the report? | Have the operator trace the employee journey | Inspect event and assignment history | Confirm evidence behind the provider’s summary |
| What work stays internal? | Record approvals, exceptions, and reporting tasks | Time the recurring tasks that concern the team | Write down retained audience and business decisions |
A managed model can be practical for a lean team, while a configurable platform can suit an owner who wants more direct control. The correct choice depends on the work your team can sustain and the evidence it needs to retain.
Use public prices as dated references, then request matching proposals. Headcount, term, package, currency, channels, and services can change the comparison. A fixed small-team plan and an enterprise per-seat rate answer different purchasing questions.
KnowBe4’s May 2026 US table, checked October 21, 2026, lists Foundation and Advanced monthly reference rates with a three-year term. The calculations below annualize those rates; they do not convert the contract into a one-year agreement.
| Reference | Fifty employees | 500 employees | Important scope condition |
|---|---|---|---|
| KnowBe4 SAT Foundation | $2.40/seat/month; $1,440 annualized; $4,320 over three years | $1.80/seat/month; $10,800 annualized; $32,400 over three years | Compare required features and full commitment |
| KnowBe4 SAT Advanced | $3.75/seat/month; $2,250 annualized; $6,750 over three years | $2.96/seat/month; $17,760 annualized; $53,280 over three years | Match the required agents and current package |
| Hook Security | Starter: $1,199 annually, covering eleven to sixty seats | Growth quote for sixty-one or more | Small-plan price is not a 500-seat rate |
| Threatcop TSAT + TLMS | Request a scoped quote | Request a scoped quote | Products, channels, learning, reporting, services |
| SoSafe | Entry reference: €625/month billed annually, including fifty seats | Request a scoped US quote | Preserve currency and entry-package conditions |
| Microsoft Attack simulation training | Verify qualifying licenses and operating cost | Verify qualifying licenses and operating cost | Existing license ownership does not remove administration |
The Hook pricing page and SoSafe package page, checked October 21, 2026, provide the stated reference points. Feature scope differs, so the table does not establish which option is cheapest for a matched program.
At 500 employees, request the same channels, training, onboarding, reporting, and service commitments from each vendor. Include usage definitions for SMS, voice, or other metered activities where they apply.
| Proposal field | Information to collect | What it prevents |
|---|---|---|
| Users and licensing | Active employees, minimums, additions, departures | Pricing a different population from the actual program |
| Products and features | Named modules and required capabilities | Comparing a partial purchase with a full program |
| Channel capacity | Modes, geography, sends, calls, retries, overages | Assuming unlimited campaigns mean unlimited delivery |
| Content and learning | Library access, customization, assignment, tracking | Omitting the learning needed after assessment |
| Implementation | Identity, delivery, permissions, integrations, testing | Treating portal access as a finished deployment |
| Service and support | Provider tasks, internal tasks, response commitments | Losing ownership when an exception occurs |
| Term and exit | Annual cost, full commitment, renewal, export | Hiding the financial or records impact of switching |
Keep a requirements checklist beside the quote. If the proposal omits a required function, add the necessary product or service cost, or record that the configuration does not satisfy the brief.
Suppose the team spends eight hours a month on administration at an internal planning rate of $75 per hour. That is $7,200 a year. If a demonstrated workflow reduces the work to four hours a month, the model becomes $3,600 annually—a $3,600 difference to consider alongside subscriptions and services.
The result depends on which tasks disappear and which remain. Do not count time as saved merely because it moves to another employee, a partner, or a separate learning platform. Include the cost of that work where relevant.
A program with 500 purchased seats and 420 active employees has 84% seat utilization. That is a useful question for procurement and user administration, but it does not automatically create a refund or lower invoice. Check the contract’s rules for user changes and minimum commitments.
If a switch takes thirty internal hours at $75 per hour and adds $900 of subscription overlap, the one-time transition cost is $3,150. At a verified ongoing benefit of $3,600 per year, the simple payback is 10.5 months.
Use your own quoted prices and timed workflows for the actual decision. Also require a working employee report route and usable completion history; a favorable financial model cannot compensate for a failed essential requirement.
Reviews are most useful when they identify a task to investigate. Recent KnowBe4 experiences show both useful automation and package-specific questions. Threatcop and Hoxhunt reviews add context about relevant learning and employee reporting.
| Exact review excerpt | Linked public author and date | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| “basic package could be more comprehensive” | Roy H., G2, August 25, 2026, system administrator, company with 51–1,000 employees | Inspect content variety in the actual proposed package; Roy also described good value |
| “automatic enrolment of new starters” | Beth S., G2, July 21, 2026, Senior Account Director, company with fifty or fewer employees | Preserve working onboarding automation when comparing alternatives |
| “Easier to change phishing campaigns, once created” | Verified User — Manager in Information Technology, TrustRadius, April 30, 2026, consumer-goods company with 51–200 employees | Test the precise campaign change needed; this reviewer used legacy Gold/Platinum access |
| “interactive and hands-on training” | Akshat V., G2, June 10, 2026, cyber security engineer, company with fifty or fewer employees | Evaluate whether Threatcop’s learning works for the roles in your pilot |
| “ample amount of real life examples” | raktim p., G2, June 10, 2026, administrator, company with 51–1,000 employees | Inspect scenario relevance and required customization |
| “Easy to use to report button for Microsoft Outlook application” | Verified User — Engineer in Information Technology, TrustRadius, October 2, 2024, IT-services company with 51–200 employees | Include employee reporting usability in the replacement test |
Roy and Beth are validated, current-user reviewers on G2, and both reviews are incentivized. Roy’s source is a seller invitation; Beth’s is a G2 invitation on behalf of the seller. Roy’s unspecified “basic package” should not be automatically mapped to current SAT Foundation.
G2 validates the two Threatcop reviewers. Akshat’s review came from a G2 invitation without a G2 incentive; raktim’s is organic without invitation or incentive. The cited KnowBe4 TrustRadius review is vetted and incentivized; the Hoxhunt review is vetted.
Beth described onboarding automation, clear program visibility, and helpful support, while noting that integration needed coordination with the IT provider. That is a reason to test and retain useful workflows, rather than assume every current KnowBe4 customer faces excessive administration.
The TrustRadius campaign-editing wish concerns a legacy access level. Use it to define a current pilot task rather than claim a universal limitation of today’s orchestration product. Likewise, a 2024 reporting experience identifies a useful employee task without establishing every current configuration.
These are selected individual experiences, not a representative ranking of eighteen platforms. Ask the final challengers for relevant references and compare the work those customers actually perform during a campaign cycle.
Use a controlled pilot with named administrative tasks and approved participants. The aim is to prove that the program handles the conditions your team faces after launch—not just that a campaign can be created with clean sample data.
For the 500-person example, create a test group with different employee situations. Include a starter, a completed learner, a person on leave, a changed department, and a participant who clicks and then reports. The group should represent the required environment without exposing unnecessary personal information.
| Pilot test | Action to perform | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| New starter | Add a learner through the intended identity route | Eligibility, baseline, assignment, reminder, completion |
| Revised policy | Publish an approved content change after assignment | Version seen, affected learners, retained prior record |
| Leave or exclusion | Remove an ineligible person from the activity | Reminder behavior and report treatment |
| Department change | Update the learner’s group or role | New assignment logic and historical attribution |
| Click then report | Complete both actions in sequence | Separate events and useful acknowledgement |
| Mistaken outcome | Investigate a known test artifact or mapping issue | Correction, access, and retained history |
| Next campaign | Prepare another exercise with current users | Operator time, approval steps, support dependencies |
Time the work your operator performs and record the manual handoffs. A platform can be effective with some manual review; the purchase becomes difficult when that work is invisible or has no owner.
Ask what happens to a learner who completed version one before version two is issued. The correct process may depend on the policy and the organization’s requirement: preserve the old completion, require acknowledgement of the change, or assign a revised activity.
Have the vendor demonstrate the chosen behavior and the report it produces. A changed file, a new version, and a new assignment should not silently become the same object in the evidence your team presents.
An identity record can exist before someone is ready or required to train. A shared mailbox, contractor, new starter, employee on leave, or departed user may need a different participation rule.
Define which event creates eligibility and which event ends it. Then test what happens to pending assignments and reminders. This reduces the risk of interpreting missing participation as poor behavior when it reflects a user-management condition.
Require reporting that explains population, behavior, assigned learning, and the next action. Completion is useful evidence of participation; a click or report is useful evidence of an event. Neither should stand in for every part of employee risk.
Suppose 500 employees are selected, 450 are eligible for the exercise, and 36 make the defined risky action. The rate is 7.2% of the selected audience or 8% of eligible participants. Show the denominator and its meaning beside the result.
| Report layer | What it should answer | Detail to inspect |
|---|---|---|
| Participation | Who should have taken part? | Selected, eligible, excluded, delivered, or unavailable |
| Employee action | What did the participant do? | Click, report, reply, completion, and event sequence |
| Assignment | Why did this activity go to this employee? | Rule, signal, group, plan, or operator decision |
| Learning | Was relevant reinforcement completed? | Module, version, due date, reminder, completion |
| Cohort | How does a department compare under known conditions? | Exposure, role, difficulty, sample size, and exceptions |
| Operations | What work did the program require? | Administrative hours, corrections, support, exports |
| History | Can prior evidence still be retrieved? | Stable identity, dated records, export and access |
Ask the awareness manager to trace one employee through all relevant layers. Then have a department owner interpret the summary. This checks both the underlying evidence and the practical usefulness of the report.
Different products can use different inputs, weights, time windows, and definitions. A score of sixty in one platform does not automatically equal sixty in another, and a score change after migration does not establish improved behavior.
Retain the old records and establish a new baseline. Where possible, compare observable actions under comparable conditions: eligible opportunity, risky action, useful report, assigned learning, and later response. Preserve uncertainty where delivery or attribution is incomplete.
Automated security inspection, preview behavior, duplicate identities, or changed group membership can complicate an event record. Ask the vendor how the administrator investigates and corrects those situations.
Require a visible explanation of the change. A tidy summary that hides an unresolved event is less useful than a report that shows the condition and the action taken to resolve it.
Start with the employee journey and records, then the configuration. Identify the report button or route, active assignments, learner identities, historical evidence, and the team responsible for genuine suspicious messages.
A staged approach lets the organization expand after essential tasks work. Use the following four-phase plan as an operating framework; the actual duration depends on procurement, data access, implementation, and employee readiness.
| Phase | Work to complete | Owner | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Define | Required functions, retained products, audience, records, cost scope | Sponsor and awareness manager | Approved brief and mandatory requirements |
| Configure | Identity, delivery, content, permissions, reporting, learning | Internal owners and vendor | Tested configuration and mapped records |
| Pilot | Campaign changes, starters, reporting, exceptions, next cycle | Awareness operator | Complete journeys and measured workload |
| Expand | Communication, controlled rollout, monitoring, old-system disposition | Sponsor and operational owners | Working report route, records, and written acceptance |
Do not cancel access before determining which history can be exported, which objects can be imported, and how the organization will retain evidence. Align the exit with the contract and the records policy that apply to the program.
During overlap, two platforms can send reminders, assign follow-up, or respond to the same employee report. Define which system owns each activity and audience while the transition is under way.
For the twenty new starters in the opening scenario, decide which system provides their baseline and official completion record. Also decide how an already completed learner is treated. An orderly change should not make people repeat work merely because the record sits in another system.
Mandatory requirements should pass before a weighted comparison matters. These include usable employee reporting, required scenario operation, acceptable data handling, and retrievable learning evidence.
For the remaining comparison, score from one to five: one means substantial work remains, three means the process works with material conditions, and five means it is demonstrated with the evidence and control your team needs.
| Evaluation area | Suggested weight | Evidence for a stronger score |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign and content control | 25% | Predictable revision, audience, timing, and version behavior |
| Onboarding and targeted learning | 20% | Eligible starters and risk events reach the right assignment |
| Employee reporting experience | 15% | Practical route, acknowledgement, and useful security handoff |
| Reporting and history | 15% | Explainable outcomes, population, learning, export |
| Recurring workload | 15% | Operator can run the next cycle and handle exceptions |
| Total cost and support | 10% | Matched scope, term, services, and clear ownership |
Calculate the weighted total by dividing each score by five and multiplying by its percentage weight. Scores of 4, 5, 4, 3, 4, and 3 in this table produce 79 out of 100. These are example inputs for your own assessment, not ratings assigned to the platforms.
Keep a demonstrated result or unresolved condition beside each score. The point is to expose what the team can operate and explain, rather than reward the longest feature list.
Choose Threatcop when the priority is making assessment results useful in the continuing learning program. The awareness manager should be able to identify a need, assign relevant reinforcement, track completion, and explain the department’s next action.
The Threatcop US awareness offering provides that program context. Ask for TSAT and TLMS together, with the employee and administrator tasks demonstrated in the proposed configuration.
| Your main requirement | Start with | Decision to settle |
|---|---|---|
| Connect assessment to relevant learning | Threatcop TSAT + TLMS | Complete employee journey and department evidence |
| Retain a working KnowBe4 program with a specific concern | Incumbent reconfiguration and two challengers | Whether the concern is package, configuration, or operating fit |
| Reduce routine program operation | usecure, Hook, Huntress, and scoped platform options | Software automation versus managed responsibilities |
| Improve policy and content administration | MetaCompliance, Infosec IQ, SoSafe, Threatcop TLMS | Revision, targeting, version evidence, and completion |
| Prioritize adaptive practice | Hoxhunt and Phished alongside required alternatives | Learner adaptation, controls, and reporting |
| Connect broader security signals to intervention | Proofpoint, Mimecast, OutThink, Living Security | Signals, included products, data owners, and action |
| Resolve a focused simulation or coaching need | Cofense, Keepnet, Adaptive Security, NINJIO, Microsoft | Exact scope and the remaining program requirements |
Bring your campaign-change request, new-hire process, required report, employee count, and current commercial scope to a Threatcop demonstration. Request a proposal around the workflow your team has seen, then compare it with retaining or reconfiguring the incumbent.
The review can identify useful evaluation tasks, but it does not establish the entitlements or behavior of a different current package. Confirm the proposed subscription and demonstrate the required workflow. Keep the review’s date and access-level context visible when using it as evidence.
The provider may run campaigns and learning, but the organization still needs owners for audience, policies, approvals, employee communications, genuine threat handling, and acceptance. Ask for a responsibility map before treating a managed proposal as the same operating model as software-only access.
Compare required capabilities, term, services, internal work, and transition cost. A fixed small-team plan, a three-year reference rate, and a custom 500-seat proposal have different conditions. Use matched quotes before concluding which option costs less for your program.
Ask each platform to demonstrate its version and assignment behavior. Preserve the original completion evidence and decide whether the revised content requires a new activity or acknowledgement. The desired result depends on the policy and the organization’s requirements, not just an editor’s ability to replace a file.
Use a consistent baseline where it is required, then apply relevant role, knowledge, or risk-based learning. Test how eligibility, existing knowledge, prior completion, and department affect the assignment. A new account should not automatically be treated as an identical learner in every context.
Ask the operator to run an approved assessment, connect the result to relevant learning, add a starter, revise a controlled lesson, and produce the department report. Include reporting, exceptions, required channels, and the next campaign. Put the demonstrated configuration and service responsibilities into the proposal.
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.
Compare 17 Proofpoint security awareness training alternatives for CISOs: pricing, integrations, and reporting, with a clear shortlist to evaluate...
Compare 16 security awareness training platforms for MSPs: multi-tenant management, pricing, and reporting, with a clear shortlist to evaluate...
Compare 16 phishing simulation tools for awareness managers: pricing, automation, and reporting, with a clear shortlist of platforms to...