12 Best Phishing Simulation Tools for Google Workspace IT Managers: Gmail Delivery, Reporting, and Pricing Compared

Imagine managing Google Workspace for 500 employees across 3 domains. Finance expects a convincing invoice exercise, the CISO wants a reliable report rate, and your help desk has 2 people available to support the rollout. The first campaign reaches only 410 inboxes. Another 30 messages appear with warnings, and nobody can explain whether the reporting button works in mobile Gmail.

A tool can support Google Workspace and still leave those questions unanswered. Your shortlist needs to connect delivery, employee reporting, follow-up learning, and administrator work in the same Gmail environment.

Threatcop belongs on that shortlist when you want customizable phishing simulations connected to a broader employee learning program. Compare its documented Google Workspace SMTP setup with the Gmail API delivery options from KnowBe4, Hoxhunt, usecure, and Keepnet. Then test reporting and training separately before choosing a contract.

Quick verdict: which Google Workspace phishing simulation tools should you shortlist?

• Threatcop: Start here for configurable simulations, employee risk assessment, and learning follow-up through TSAT and TLMS. Its Google Workspace delivery documentation covers SMTP configuration; request a demonstration of your exact Gmail reporting workflow.
• KnowBe4 and Hoxhunt: Strong candidates when documented Gmail API delivery is a priority. Their reporting implementations and user-management requirements still need separate evaluation.
• usecure and Keepnet: Compare when you want automated programs with documented Google message insertion. Review authentication, domain scope, reporting, and the package you will actually buy.
• Huntress and Infosec IQ: Include when managed campaign support or structured training and reporting matter. Confirm the Google delivery configuration and supported simulation types during the pilot.
• IRONSCALES, Cofense, and Phished: Consider when employee reporting must connect closely with a broader email-security or response program. Specify which simulation, training, and response components the quote includes.
• Choose by completed workflow: One test should prove inbox arrival, deliberate employee action, report attribution, training access, and an export your manager can use. A compatibility logo proves much less.

Product documentation and pricing references below were checked on October 21, 2026. Quote-based entries require a proposal for your employee count, deployment, and service scope.

How do the 12 Google Workspace phishing simulation tools compare?

The order below reflects buyer use cases and the focus on Threatcop. It is an editorial shortlist, with no invented test scores or customer-rating leaderboard.

Use this table to choose 3 demonstrations, rather than booking 12 identical sales calls. For example, compare Threatcop, an API-focused awareness specialist, and a reporting-led security platform against the same Gmail audience and the same output requirements.

1. Threatcop: best for configurable simulations with connected learning follow-up

Threatcop Security Awareness Training gives IT and awareness teams a way to assess employee responses to simulated attacks and turn the results into targeted training. The appeal for a Google Workspace buyer is the combination of campaign control and an employee-development program that can extend beyond one email test.

5.7 million+ employees have been tested and assessed through Threatcop simulations, and 4.8 million+ have been trained. Its US platform overview also describes a 2,000+ content library across 8 formats. Those resources give a team more options when one group needs short reinforcement and another needs a structured learning path.

For Gmail delivery, Threatcop’s SMTP migration documentation identifies Google Workspace configuration and separates sending infrastructure, sender domains, and landing-page domains. That is useful detail for an administrator comparing the operational work behind a campaign.

Best fit: Your awareness manager wants to adjust scenarios and your IT team can approve a documented Google delivery configuration. Put the Gmail campaign and its follow-up assignment into the demonstration, then ask the presenter to export the resulting employee records.

Pricing and limits: Request a written TSAT/TLMS proposal. Include the number of active learners, campaign requirements, languages, training access, onboarding, and support. If your buying requirement is Gmail API insertion or a specific native Gmail reporting add-on, make that an explicit acceptance item; SMTP documentation alone does not establish either capability.

2. KnowBe4: best for buyers prioritizing documented Google DMI

KnowBe4 publishes a detailed Direct Message Injection configuration guide, updated July 17, 2026. It describes authorizing an application that uses Google APIs to place simulated phishing messages into employee inboxes.

The distinctions are commercially useful: Google DMI cannot target alias addresses, the connection applies to selected primary-address domains, and training emails need separate delivery configuration. The guide also warns that post-delivery filtering can still affect interactions or attachment behavior. Include those cases in the pilot rather than treating API insertion as a complete delivery guarantee.

Best fit: You want a documented Google API route and configurable recurring training. Compare the package’s campaign controls, reporting, and user-management capabilities with the work your team will perform each month.

Pricing and limits: The US price table checked on October 21, 2026 lists SAT Foundation at $2.13 and SAT Advanced at $3.40 per seat per month for 51–100 seats on a 3-year term. The table labels its prices as May 2026 pricing. Validate tier inclusions and add-ons in the proposal; the monthly unit does not make this a month-to-month agreement.

3. Hoxhunt: best for Gmail reporting and API delivery in one training experience

Hoxhunt’s Google Workspace implementation overview separates 5 implementation areas: delivery, network and link access, the Gmail add-on, optional SSO, and optional automated provisioning. That separation helps you assign work to the right administrator.

Its Gmail API delivery guide explains message insertion and Google OAuth audit events. It also distinguishes which messages can fall back to SMTP when API delivery has a problem. Ask how failures appear in the campaign report instead of assuming every message follows one route.

Best fit: You want employees to report simulations and suspicious messages from Gmail, with feedback connected to training. The Workspace add-on guide covers web Gmail and Android/iOS Gmail, while also documenting client limitations.

Pricing and limits: Hoxhunt quotes per employee and required capabilities. Its add-on documentation lists restrictions involving already-tagged spam or dangerous messages, shared-mailbox reporting, and iPadOS. If those are central to your workforce, require current client-specific confirmation before selecting it.

4. usecure: best for automated training with a documented Google insertion option

usecure combines phishing simulation, automated training, policy management, and reporting. Its Google Message Injection guide, dated July 11, 2024, describes a service account, Gmail API access, and domain-wide delegation for inserting simulation messages.

That architecture creates a clear procurement question: who owns the Google Cloud project and service account, and who replaces or revokes credentials? A team that already maintains Google service accounts may find this familiar. A team without that owner should include the handover in onboarding scope.

Best fit: You want recurring phishing and learning automation with centralized user and policy records. Demonstrate the Google audience, a failed-simulation learning assignment, and the recurring report rather than assessing automation from a dashboard screenshot.

Pricing and limits: The current pricing page distinguishes MSP billing from internal IT-team arrangements. IT-team pricing is per user, billed annually, with a tailored quote; MSP flexibility should not be assumed to apply to every direct-customer contract. Verify Gmail reporting separately from message insertion. An API that delivers a simulation does not automatically create an employee reporting button.

5. Keepnet: best for teams comparing direct creation with broader simulation options

Keepnet documents Google Direct Email Creation, or DEC. It creates a simulation message in the inbox through a Google integration instead of sending it through the ordinary SMTP path.

The guide requires the selected domain to be verified and to match the employee’s primary email domain. It also treats URL-protection configuration as a separate dependency. Those details help distinguish a successful inbox-insertion test from a complete employee exercise.

Best fit: You want to compare an API-based Google route within a broader human-risk program. Ask the demonstration to show one verified domain, one excluded domain, the delivery-error view, and the report produced after an employee deliberately interacts.

Pricing and limits: Keepnet pricing provides tailored packages. Specify phishing simulation, awareness training, reporting, additional channels, and support as separate scope lines. Review the current Google permission requirements with the platform owner. A faster delivery configuration is useful only when the team also understands access, domain coverage, and continuing maintenance.

6. Huntress: best for lean teams considering managed phishing administration

Huntress offers managed and self-service phishing programs. Its Google relevance is concrete: domain-verification guidance, updated June 4, 2026, describes Google Workspace provider synchronization for the learner groups you want to target.

The same guidance requires domain authorization and at least one verified deliverability test before campaigns begin. It explicitly distinguishes company-managed domains from consumer addresses such as personal Gmail. A workforce that uses Gmail through Workspace is a different deployment from a list of individual gmail.com accounts.

Best fit: Your IT team needs help running a regular program, or an MSP manages employee training across clients. Ask which tasks Huntress handles after the first campaign and which remain with your Google administrator.

Pricing and limits: Request a learner-based SAT quote and a clear statement of managed versus self-service responsibilities. The Huntress SAT Report a Phish Marketplace listing establishes a Gmail reporting option. Test your actual browsers and mobile clients, reporting destination, permissions, and feedback behavior before assuming identical coverage everywhere.

7. Infosec IQ: best for structured campaigns with Gmail reporting and training

Infosec IQ connects phishing simulation, employee segmentation, immediate learning, and campaign reporting. Its program-management page explicitly describes PhishNotify support in Outlook and Gmail, plus API-based connections for program data.

Its phishing simulation product page covers dynamic template lists, department and role targeting, behavior-based learning, and exportable reporting. For a Google buyer, the practical comparison is whether those features work with the delivery configuration and template types you intend to use.

Best fit: An awareness owner wants a structured recurring program while IT provides the Google configuration. Request a Gmail exercise that ends with a learner assignment, a completed course record, and a filtered departmental export.

Pricing and limits: Obtain a quote for the applicable content and service package. Review Infosec’s Google Workspace allowlisting guidance with its implementation team, particularly for attachments and warning behavior. Define the exact safe payload types that pass in your tenant. A general product-page attachment feature is insufficient to promise every attachment scenario in Gmail.

8. IRONSCALES: best for buyers combining Gmail simulations with email security

IRONSCALES positions phishing simulation and awareness training within a broader email-security platform. Its Google Workspace solution page describes API integration without MX-record changes, Gmail reporting, automated response capabilities, and employee-specific simulations.

This makes it a different purchase from a standalone simulation subscription. If the same team owns awareness and Gmail incident response, that combination may reduce separate handoffs. If you only need employee exercises, request the human-risk scope explicitly and compare it with standalone training tools.

Best fit: You want Gmail reporting and training considered alongside post-delivery email protection. Ask the demonstration to keep the simulation report, employee-submitted real messages, and automated remediation actions distinguishable.

Pricing and limits: The pricing page lists Human Risk Management separately and shows HRM add-ons in relevant email-security plan comparisons. Confirm the quoted combination, supported Google capabilities, and optional services. An API integration for email protection does not, by itself, describe the mechanics of every simulation campaign; ask the vendor to demonstrate the specific delivery route.

9. Cofense: best for teams making Gmail reporting part of a response program

Cofense combines PhishMe simulation with Reporter and specialist response products. Its Google email-security article describes Reporter as a Gmail add-on that works across browsers, rather than relying only on a Chrome extension.

For an organization with multiple approved browsers, that implementation detail matters. It still needs a current demonstration for your client mix, mailbox types, reporting destination, and the response tooling you intend to license.

Best fit: Your security team treats employee-reported suspicious mail as an input to a defined incident-response process. Compare how simulated reports receive feedback and how genuine suspicious messages reach the queue owned by your analysts.

Pricing and limits: Request separate scope for PhishMe, Reporter, Triage, services, and integrations. Keep a training purchase distinct from a commitment to a wider response stack. Ask for the current Google simulation delivery design as well as the reporting add-on: a verified Gmail Reporter capability alone does not prove that every PhishMe scenario uses native API insertion.

10. Phished: best for teams seeking automated simulations and inbox feedback

Phished connects automated simulation, learning, and reporting. Its training and reporting overview explicitly describes Google Workspace integration and report information linked back to the training environment.

The buying question is whether that automation matches your operating model. A small IT team may value a program that needs little recurring scheduling, while a dedicated awareness manager may want more control over individual exercises and exceptions. Ask to see both the default program and the override workflow.

Best fit: You want a recurring employee program with feedback close to the inbox and centralized reporting. Put a Google employee lifecycle change and a missed-training reminder into the demonstration alongside the simulation.

Pricing and limits: Phished’s pricing page distinguishes Core, Advanced, and All-in-One capabilities, including differences in training and reporting. Obtain the current US quote for your scope instead of assuming that a platform starting price includes every learner, integration, or advanced report. Request a current Google deployment diagram and supported-client list before treating general integration language as a technical specification.

11. PhishingBox: best for Google directory sync and explicit direct-delivery controls

PhishingBox’s Google Workspace integration page describes synchronizing Google-managed users into campaign audiences and supporting training access. That makes it relevant when maintaining employee lists is a recurring bottleneck.

Its Direct Delivery guide, updated August 18, 2026, documents Google API delivery for simulated phishing and training messages. It requires active mailboxes in the connected tenant and excludes alias addresses. Group-level Direct Delivery settings can override the campaign-screen toggle, so include the effective group configuration in your pilot record.

Best fit: You want directory synchronization and clear control over campaign delivery. Demonstrate a primary mailbox, a rejected alias, and the group-level delivery choice alongside your employee export.

Pricing and limits: Compare the current PhishingBox packages for learning, APIs, reporting, and support; request the applicable seat total. Its KillPhish page distinguishes Google reporting from Microsoft inbox-scanning coverage. Confirm the Gmail reporting experience without transferring Outlook-specific scanning capabilities to Google.

12. Wizer: best for a publicly priced training plan with Gmail reporting

Wizer offers recurring and on-demand simulations, employee training, and a Gmail reporting option. Its Report Phishing Marketplace listing, updated August 4, 2026, describes administrator deployment for reporting suspicious messages and simulation emails.

The Marketplace listing marks the add-on as free of charge. That price applies to the listed app; Wizer’s broader recurring phishing program belongs in the paid-plan comparison. Keep those two scope decisions separate.

Best fit: You want to compare a training-and-simulation program with transparent published pricing and a documented Gmail reporting app. The simulation page describes monthly automation and on-demand campaigns. Ask for your Google delivery route, supported clients, and the resulting report.

Pricing and limits: Wizer Boost pricing, checked October 21, 2026, lists $20 per user per year at the 51+ user band on a 3-year term, billed annually. For 100 users, that is $2,000 annually or $6,000 over 3 years before applicable extras. Confirm required integrations, managed services, and renewal terms; the basic free training plan should not be treated as the paid simulation subscription.

Gmail API insertion versus SMTP: which delivery model fits your program?

API insertion is useful for placing controlled exercises in employee inboxes. SMTP delivery is useful when your approved program uses the ordinary email path with a defined simulation configuration. Choose the route that answers your assessment question and fits your team’s operating responsibilities.

Google’s Gmail messages.insert reference, updated April 15, 2026, explains that insertion places a message directly in one mailbox and bypasses most scanning and classification. It does not send a message through the normal email-delivery path. Consequently, a successful inserted exercise measures employee behavior under that delivery condition; it does not show that Gmail’s inbound filter failed to detect a real attack.

Neither column eliminates landing-page, browser, reporting, or learning dependencies. For example, Keepnet separates DEC from URL-protection requirements, and Threatcop separates sending IPs from sender and landing-page domains. Both distinctions should appear in your acceptance plan.

Ask whether all program messages use the same route

A simulation, a training invitation, a reminder, and a real-message report can follow different delivery paths. KnowBe4’s DMI guide specifically separates training-email configuration. Hoxhunt documents different fallback behavior for simulation, onboarding, and other system messages.

Request a 4-row message map from each finalist: simulation delivery, training notification, reminder, and reported-message forwarding. Name the owner and expected result for each. This prevents a technically successful phishing test from hiding an inaccessible course or an unanswered employee report.

Keep scanner activity separate from human behavior

A security service may open a tracking resource or inspect a link before an employee does. Request the vendor’s documented treatment of automated events and demonstrate a deliberately clicked link with a recognizable test-user timestamp.

A clean dashboard should let you explain why an event is counted, excluded, or marked uncertain. Do not accept a lower click rate merely because one product filters events differently from another. Compare products with the same definitions and the same reporting window.

What should Gmail reporting and mobile support include?

A reporting workflow needs a visible employee action, a known destination, and a recorded result. Gmail delivery support does not establish all 3. A report button, native Gmail action, forwarded message, and browser extension can create different user experiences and different attribution records.

Before purchasing, ask the vendor to demonstrate how its supported action distinguishes a simulation from a real suspicious message. Then confirm what the employee sees and what the administrator receives in each case. Threatcop’s Gmail phishing-prevention guide provides useful employee context; the procurement demonstration should establish your specific product workflow.

The output should be a client-support map your help desk can use. Hoxhunt’s documented add-on restrictions show why a generic mobile checkbox is inadequate. Apply the same questions fairly to every finalist rather than assuming an undocumented limitation is absent or universal.

Give employees one reporting instruction they can follow

If your policy tells people to use one control but training credits another, the report rate becomes partly a test of instructions. Agree the supported action with security operations and the awareness owner before a campaign begins.

For a 500-person organization, give the help desk a short answer for 3 common cases: the button is missing, the message is already in spam, and the employee clicked before reporting. Ask each vendor whether it can preserve useful reports in those situations and how exceptions appear in the export.

Which Google permissions and user-management details matter most?

An integration can have 4 separate functions: employee provisioning, administrator or learner SSO, simulation delivery, and suspicious-message reporting. Request the permissions and owner for each function. One successful sign-in does not prove directory synchronization or inbox delivery.

Google’s domain-wide delegation guidance, updated October 20, 2026, calls for super-administrator privileges and appropriately narrow scopes. It also recommends regular review of service accounts and removal of access that is no longer needed. Build those responsibilities into the handover so the integration remains maintainable after the purchasing administrator changes roles.

Test the employee lifecycle before comparing automation

Use a pilot list containing a new starter, an existing employee, a renamed account, a suspended employee, and an excluded service account. Ask the vendor to show how each moves through its program. Confirm what happens to historical records when an employee leaves or changes address.

A directory integration may target organizational units, groups, or another supported source. Those objects are not interchangeable. Make the inclusion rule explicit, including nested groups if relevant, and verify whether an imported organizational field becomes a reporting filter.

Check primary addresses, aliases, and additional domains

KnowBe4’s documented Google DMI alias restriction is one reason to use primary mailbox identities in the acceptance list. Keepnet also documents primary-domain matching for DEC. Do not assume a successful test to your main domain covers an acquired company, secondary domain, or alias-heavy department.

Ask for a clear failed-delivery record when the account or domain is outside the supported scope. A visible exception is more useful than silently missing employees who later appear to have passed the campaign.

How much do Google Workspace phishing simulation tools cost?

Compare subscription price, term, learning scope, reporting scope, implementation, and recurring labor together. A lower unit price can lose its advantage if the team must manually reconcile Google users or rebuild management reports every month.

KnowBe4 provides a public US reference. Wizer also publishes a useful list-price reference. Normalize all proposals to the same audience and requirements. Quote-based pricing means the final cost needs confirmation; it does not establish that a tool is more expensive.

KnowBe4’s official price table identifies the displayed rates as May 2026 list pricing. For 100 seats, Foundation calculates to $2,556 for 12 months and $7,668 across 36 months at the listed rate. Advanced calculates to $4,080 for 12 months and $12,240 across 36 months. These are subscription calculations before applicable extras, rather than quotes or representations of when payment is due.

Send every finalist the same 500-person scope

Request pricing for 500 active employees across 3 domains, recurring email simulations, employee reporting, follow-up training, management exports, and implementation support. State any additional language or mobile-client requirements. Ask what changes at renewal and when headcount grows or falls.

Keep nonessential products separate. Domain authentication, email-threat remediation, and extra simulation channels may be valuable, but they should not make two awareness proposals impossible to compare. Threatcop’s TSAT and TLMS should be scoped to the campaign-and-learning requirement; add other products only when the actual program needs them.

Include recurring administrator work in total cost

Suppose an IT team spends 4 hours per month maintaining audiences, resolving delivery exceptions, and preparing reports. At an assumed internal labor value of $85 per hour, that consumes $340 per month or $4,080 per year of staff capacity.

If a more suitable workflow reduces the measured workload to 1.5 hours per month, the corresponding capacity cost becomes $1,530 per year. The difference is 30 hours or $2,550 annually. These planning inputs help compare proposals; they are not promised savings or an automatic reduction in payroll.

Measure the full month around a pilot, including preparation and follow-up. A product can require more care during setup and less work later; record those periods separately so a one-time task does not become an inflated annual cost.

What do verified customer reviews reveal about these tools?

Reviews are most useful when they identify a workflow to inspect. The excerpts below retain the original reviewer, date, and source link. They describe individual experiences; current Google delivery and client support should still be demonstrated for your tenant.

The 2 Threatcop excerpts support examining content relevance and learning engagement. Farrukh’s Google-specific experience supports including usecure in the comparison, while his request for clearer guidance makes onboarding a useful demonstration item. The KnowBe4 review provides broader automation context without establishing current Gmail behavior.

Turn review praise into an acceptance question

For engaging content, ask an employee to complete a short assignment and identify the action they should change. For integration praise, ask the administrator to trace one real user record through synchronization, simulation, and reporting. For automation, ask what remains to be done after the default program runs.

Do not compare a general star rating with a Gmail-specific requirement. A platform can have satisfied customers using another mail system, a different package, or a different reporting route. The question for this purchase is whether your employees and administrators can complete the required workflow.

How should you pilot the top 3 tools in Google Workspace?

Use a 30-person acceptance pilot across the 3 domains in the earlier scenario. Include the clients and employee cases your organization actually uses. This is a proposed comparison design, not a vendor implementation timeline or statistical proof of company-wide behavior.

Assign 10 participants per domain where the audience permits, and include finance, general staff, and one high-contact team such as recruiting or sales. Keep the scenario difficulty, reporting instruction, and observation window consistent across finalists.

Approve the candidate that clears the essential checks and fits the team’s workload. If a tool misses a required client, ask whether a supported alternative meets the same user need; do not quietly redefine the requirement after the demonstration.

Use a transparent buyer scorecard

Allocate 25 points to delivery and event integrity, 20 to reporting, 20 to learning and scenario fit, 15 to administration, 10 to permissions and handover, and 10 to commercial fit. The weights total 100 and are a proposed purchasing framework, not product ratings.

Score each finalist only after reviewing the evidence. For a mobile-heavy workforce, shift points toward client coverage; for a lean IT team, increase recurring-administration weight. Keep a separate pass/fail requirement for a capability whose absence would prevent rollout, regardless of total score.

Separate Google and Microsoft delivery evidence

For a mixed-mail organization, ask each finalist to show the Google and Microsoft audiences separately before combining management totals. A configured Microsoft campaign does not establish Google inbox delivery, and a Google reporting add-on does not establish support for every Microsoft client. Keep each environment’s delivery exceptions visible while preserving one employee training history.

Keep your denominators visible

Return to the opening 500-person scenario. If only 410 messages reached usable inboxes and 41 employees clicked, the click rate against those delivered messages is 10%. Dividing by all 500 intended employees gives 8.2%, which answers a different question and conceals the delivery gap.

Report intended audience, confirmed delivery, technical exceptions, deliberate employee actions, reports, and learning completion separately. Add the definitions and time window to the export. A better buying decision starts with a report the CISO can interpret without a second spreadsheet.

Which tool is best for your Google Workspace team?

Shortlist Threatcop first when you want a configurable assessment-and-learning program and can validate its Gmail delivery and reporting workflow during onboarding. TSAT addresses simulation and employee assessment; TLMS supports the learning program. The combination deserves a demonstration built around your real roles and follow-up requirements.

Choose your other finalists according to the constraint that would otherwise stop the project. That can be API insertion, mobile reporting, service ownership, a learning package, or an existing incident-response stack.

The strongest proposal specifies who does the work after the sale. Ask for delivery ownership, approved clients, user-management scope, monthly output, and contract terms in writing. That gives the IT manager, awareness owner, and CISO a shared basis for choosing.

Book a Threatcop demonstration with your Google administrator and awareness owner. Bring the 500-person scope, 3 domains, supported-client list, and the report you want to hand leadership. Ask to see the campaign, employee response, learning assignment, and final export as one connected exercise.

FAQs about phishing simulation tools for Google Workspace

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.