17 Best Proofpoint Security Awareness Training Alternatives for CISOs: Pricing, Integrations, and Reporting Compared

The best Proofpoint security awareness training alternative preserves the learning and reporting your organization needs while improving the part of the program that prompted the search. For a CISO, that means comparing targeted education, simulation realism, security integrations, evidence quality, and the full cost of operating the replacement.

Picture a CISO reviewing a training renewal for 2,000 employees. Eighty people work in finance, thirty handle help-desk requests, and the security team plans to keep Proofpoint email protection. The CISO wants more relevant practice for those two exposed groups, but cannot afford to lose suspicious-message reporting or spend the next quarter rebuilding management reports. The right replacement has to fit that existing environment.

Threatcop TSAT + TLMS is our recommended starting point when the priority is connecting employee risk assessment to personalized cybersecurity learning. Threatcop has assessed 5.7 million+ employees and trained 4.8 million+ employees. Its US platform overview connects employee risk scores with AI-assigned learning, a 2,000+ content library across eight formats, tracking, and reminders.

Keep the comparison specific. Replacing Proofpoint ZenGuide training does not, by itself, replace email protection, data-loss prevention, archiving, or every incident-response function in your security stack.

Updated October 21, 2026. Published by Threatcop. Pricing references identify the published terms where available; request current US proposals for your own deployment.

Quick verdict: which Proofpoint awareness-training alternatives belong on your shortlist?

• For assessment connected to relevant learning: start with Threatcop TSAT + TLMS. Trace an employee assessment through the assigned training and the management report.
• For adaptive simulation practice: compare Hoxhunt, Phished, KnowBe4, and NINJIO. Inspect how individual results change the next exercise or coaching assignment.
• For learning informed by broader security signals: evaluate Mimecast Engage, OutThink, and Living Security. Verify the specific connections and data available in your environment.
• For learning, policy, and program administration: compare MetaCompliance, Infosec IQ, SoSafe, SANS, and Threatcop TLMS against your content and reporting requirements.
• For simulation and reporting workflows: include Cofense, Keepnet, and Adaptive Security where their demonstrated capabilities match your threat scenarios.
• For a different operating model: assess Arctic Wolf’s managed delivery. Include Microsoft Attack simulation training for a narrower requirement supported by your Microsoft licenses and environment.

Use this as a map of operating choices. These options differ in scope and delivery model, so the table does not imply that every entry replaces the same Proofpoint products.

What does replacing Proofpoint ZenGuide actually include?

Start with a list of the functions you use today. The current Proofpoint ZenGuide page, checked October 21, 2026, describes risk-based grouping, automated enrollment, personalized learning, and simulations informed by real attacks. It also describes AI ThreatFlip for turning detected phishing into training and reporting combined with Human Resilience Workbench.

That is the incumbent baseline. A comparison that treats Proofpoint as static annual training will miss capabilities your organization may already have.

The ZenGuide solution brief explains how Adaptive Groups and Pathways connect audience selection with education and assessments. It also describes reporting across simulated and real-world behaviors. Check which of these functions are included, configured, and useful in your own subscription.

The purchase can be a training replacement, a wider platform change, or a service-model change. Write that scope into the evaluation before asking vendors for prices.

Keep working email protection in the scope discussion

If the security team plans to retain Proofpoint email protection, tell every challenger. Ask how simulations will be delivered through the retained controls and how real suspicious-message reports will reach the correct security process. A training demonstration alone does not answer either question.

You may retain the current reporting route, replace it, or connect a separate reporting product. Each choice changes implementation, support, and the cost comparison. Require a clear owner for the employee-facing reporting experience and the security team’s receiving queue.

Give the incumbent the same requirements

Before switching, ask Proofpoint to demonstrate the missing outcome in your current or proposed configuration. If the problem is an unused capability, unclear ownership, or an incomplete integration, a configuration change may be the more practical option.

The challenger still needs to prove a better fit. Ask both sides to demonstrate the same finance scenario, the same help-desk scenario, and the same reporting request. That gives the CISO evidence that relates to the actual program rather than two unrelated sales demonstrations.

Which 17 Proofpoint security awareness training alternatives should CISOs compare?

1. Threatcop TSAT + TLMS: best starting point for assessment connected to personalized learning

Threatcop Security Awareness Training provides employee assessment and simulation. Threatcop Learning Management System provides cybersecurity learning, learner monitoring, and progress reporting. The US offering connects individual risk scores to AI-assigned education and automated reminders.

Best for: CISOs who want the assessment result to lead to a specific learning response that the awareness team can explain and track. The key demonstration is one employee moving from an observed need to relevant training, completion, and a department-level summary.

Commercial and integration check: request TSAT and TLMS scope explicitly, including required channels, onboarding, content, support, and data connections. If suspicious-message reporting is part of the replacement, evaluate Threatcop Phishing Incident Response separately in the proposed design. Do not assume that purchasing training automatically includes every response capability.

2. KnowBe4: best for teams evaluating orchestration and a structured training program

KnowBe4’s current SAT pricing page presents Foundation and Advanced packages. The AIDA Orchestration guide, updated October 20, 2026, describes audience inclusion and exclusion, frequency controls, and automated activity within orchestration plans.

Best for: teams that want to compare a configurable awareness program with automated orchestration. Use your own audience and escalation rules to inspect what the administrator controls and what the system chooses.

Commercial and integration check: confirm the current package and AIDA entitlement for the required process. Compare published three-year pricing with the full contract commitment. If your organization still holds a legacy package, reconcile the actual renewal offer before comparing it with a new subscription.

3. Hoxhunt: best for continuous adaptive practice and employee reporting habits

Hoxhunt’s phishing-training product describes simulations that adapt difficulty, cadence, and scenarios, with immediate feedback and reinforcement. Its current scope includes email, SMS, voice and callback, collaboration, and deepfake scenarios; demonstrate the specific modes you need.

Best for: organizations that prioritize recurring practice and want to see how employees learn to report suspicious activity. Compare two participants with different histories and inspect what happens after each response.

Commercial and integration check: request headcount-based pricing for the capabilities and services required. Trace a real suspicious-message report as well as a simulated one. Reporting practice and the downstream security response should both fit the retained security environment.

4. Mimecast Engage: best for behavior-driven intervention connected to risk visibility

Mimecast Engage combines risk visibility, personalized intervention, simulations, and training. Its positioning makes it relevant when a CISO wants security context to influence the next learning action.

Best for: organizations evaluating how risk information from their environment can shape awareness activity. Demonstrate the signal, the affected person or group, the intervention, and the resulting record.

Commercial and integration check: specify the required data sources and purchased components. Ask what works with the systems you intend to retain, what requires a new connection, and what the awareness team can inspect when a learning assignment appears. A platform-level integration discussion should resolve into a working example.

5. MetaCompliance: best for connecting awareness with policy administration

MetaCompliance combines automated awareness, phishing simulation, compliance management, and risk analytics. It is relevant when the CISO shares program responsibilities with policy owners, compliance teams, and learning administrators.

Best for: organizations that need employee education and policy activity to sit within a coordinated program. Bring a revised finance policy and ask how the correct people receive it, acknowledge it, and receive any related training.

Commercial and integration check: identify the modules required for policy, learning, simulation, and analytics. Compare a policy acknowledgment with a knowledge assessment and a course completion; each record supports a different statement. Ask the vendor to produce the report your policy owner and security leader actually need.

6. Infosec IQ: best for customized learning and repeatable program automation

Infosec IQ program automation supports structured learning and phishing workflows. It belongs on the shortlist when content selection, campaign planning, and repeated delivery are central to the awareness team’s work.

Best for: organizations that want flexibility in learning content and a repeatable program calendar. Show the vendor an existing course, a target group, an onboarding requirement, and a follow-up rule.

The automation documentation identifies directory provisioning, SCIM, SSO, and API-based data sharing with learning and security systems. Ask which of those connections supports your specific identity and reporting requirement.

Commercial and integration check: request the current subscription and scope that cover those tasks. Demonstrate enrollment, the required content, the resulting progress record, and a report export. If another learning management system remains in place, establish where the authoritative completion record will live.

7. Cofense: best for a phishing program centered on employee reporting

Cofense PhishMe emphasizes phishing competency, adaptive simulations, learning, and reporting. It is a relevant comparison when the desired outcome is a workforce that recognizes suspicious activity and uses an established reporting route.

Best for: teams that want to connect phishing practice with reporting behavior and security operations. Have an employee report an approved simulation and then demonstrate a harmless test message representing the real-report route.

Commercial and integration check: distinguish training and simulation from separate reporting, triage, and response capabilities. Ask which components must be purchased and configured together. The useful comparison is the complete operating path, including the security analyst’s receiving experience and the employee’s feedback.

8. Keepnet: best for modular simulation and human-risk capabilities

Keepnet’s phishing simulator describes simulations across multiple channels, behavior reporting, risk scoring, and follow-up learning. Its pricing page presents modular buying choices rather than a single universal deployment.

Best for: organizations that have identified specific simulation gaps or want to compare a wider human-risk platform. Start with the finance and help-desk scenarios rather than a generic count of channels.

Commercial and integration check: compare the standalone product with the broader package needed to meet your requirements. Confirm the channel modes, reporting route, identity handling, and follow-up assignment. Record whether the proposal covers only simulation or also the learning and response functions used in the current program.

9. SoSafe: best for personalized learning within a connected human-risk program

SoSafe’s current package page presents Core and Advanced choices that combine learning, simulations, and other capabilities. It also distinguishes standard implementation and support from separately purchased enterprise services.

Best for: organizations that want personalized learning and phishing practice alongside human-risk management. Compare the required package using two different employee roles and inspect their assigned learning, activity, and reporting.

Commercial and integration check: request a US proposal for your population and required service level. The public entry reference is for a small account and should not be projected onto a 2,000-person deployment. Verify the connections, administrative permissions, support, and implementation assistance in the actual offer.

10. NINJIO: best for coaching based on social-engineering susceptibility

NINJIO PHISH3D uses simulation behavior to build emotional susceptibility profiles and adjust difficulty. NINJIO SENSE uses those profiles for personalized coaching based on the social-engineering triggers affecting the person.

Best for: CISOs who want simulation results to influence the type of coaching employees receive. Ask how the program differentiates someone responding to urgency from someone responding to another persuasion trigger.

Commercial and integration check: identify which simulation, training, and coaching components are included. Demonstrate how the susceptibility result leads to an assignment and later reporting. Avoid assuming that a profile score is directly comparable with a risk score produced by another platform using different inputs.

11. Adaptive Security: best for current impersonation scenarios and custom learning

Adaptive Security’s product and pricing scope includes simulation, role-based training, custom content, and learning generated from company documents or policies. It is relevant when the replacement needs to reflect threats and procedures specific to the organization.

Best for: teams evaluating contemporary impersonation practice alongside relevant education. Bring an approved finance process and ask the vendor to show the scenario, employee interaction, follow-up, and report.

Commercial and integration check: specify the simulation channels, content tools, and administrative controls required. Inspect approval before generated content reaches employees. Establish what the platform automates, what an operator reviews, and whether any extra configuration or service is needed for the proposed process.

12. Living Security: best for training assigned through risk-based playbooks

Living Security’s training offering combines learning content, custom creation, and playbooks that assign training based on risk events. It also supports delivery through its employee experience or SCORM packages for an existing learning management system.

Best for: organizations that want to connect risk information, intervention, and learning records while retaining a broader learning environment. Demonstrate a trigger, assignment, reminder, completion, and the resulting management view.

Commercial and integration check: confirm the platform capabilities and data inputs needed for the playbook. If content moves to another LMS, inspect which version is exported, what the package contains, and where completion is recorded. The learning delivery route should match the evidence the organization plans to retain.

13. OutThink: best for learning shaped by employee role and security context

OutThink’s self-adapting training uses role, knowledge, motivation, organizational context, and security signals to shape individual learning. Its product description includes directory mapping and connections to security data such as endpoint and data-loss-prevention signals.

Best for: organizations seeking a more contextual learning process across business units. Inspect how a role is mapped, how an input changes the experience, and how the security team understands that decision.

Commercial and integration check: name the actual directory and security products in the evaluation. Confirm supported connections, the information collected, and the resulting intervention. Have the vendor show what happens when role information is missing or a signal is unavailable, rather than evaluate only an ideal preconfigured example.

14. Phished: best for adaptive simulation with less recurring campaign planning

Phished’s simulation offering adapts difficulty and scenarios to learners and automates recurring simulation activity and follow-up. Its current product describes company-specific campaigns and turning a reported threat into safe training.

Best for: teams that want ongoing practice while reducing manual campaign preparation. Compare the next activity for employees with different histories and ask how custom scenarios enter the program.

Commercial and integration check: confirm the purchased training and simulation scope, approval process, identity handling, and required reporting connections. Have an administrator change a proposed campaign and explain which changes affect future activity. Check how automated activity remains visible to the people responsible for the program.

15. SANS: best for role-specific learning and awareness-program maturity

SANS security awareness training combines role-specific end-user education, phishing simulation, and culture and knowledge assessments. Its phishing offering includes customizable tests, just-in-time learning, and automated remedial courses.

Best for: organizations that want learning content and assessment to support a broader program-development effort. Compare the material for finance, help-desk staff, managers, and general employees against the behavior each group needs to practice.

Commercial and integration check: request a proposal covering the content, simulations, assessments, services, and delivery route required. Establish how content fits the current LMS, how learner identity is maintained, and how completion and behavior results can support the CISO’s reporting. Do not confuse end-user awareness offerings with separate practitioner certification courses.

16. Arctic Wolf: best for teams seeking a managed delivery model

Arctic Wolf Aurora Security Awareness and Training provides a managed content-delivery model, microlearning, phishing simulations, a reporting button, and manager and user reporting. The current page separately lists Plus capabilities such as custom scheduling, custom simulations, and LMS content download.

Best for: organizations whose main constraint is sustaining a program with limited internal capacity. Compare the provider’s recurring work with the tasks that remain with security, HR, IT, and department managers.

Commercial and integration check: request the base or Plus scope that meets the brief, including any additional content pack. Verify customization and LMS rights rather than assume every capability is in the base offer. Review the process for an urgent scenario change, an employee-reporting issue, and a missing management report.

17. Microsoft Attack simulation training: best for a narrower supported Microsoft requirement

Microsoft’s official documentation requires Microsoft 365 E5 or Defender for Office 365 Plan 2 licensing. It supports specified simulation and training scenarios, with reporting differences for on-premises mailboxes.

Best for: organizations checking whether an existing licensed environment can cover the particular simulations and learning they need. It is a narrower option in this comparison, not an assumption of complete ZenGuide replacement.

Commercial and integration check: verify the licenses assigned to the population, supported mailbox configuration, required scenarios, and report availability. Compare any remaining content, learning, administration, and reporting needs separately. Existing license ownership can affect incremental cost, but does not establish that the entire program is covered.

Which integrations matter if you keep Proofpoint email protection?

An integration matters when it moves the right information into a useful action. For the 2,000-person organization, identify the connections required for identity, simulation delivery, real-message reporting, learning assignment, and management evidence. Each connection needs an owner and an observable result.

Ask for a demonstrated path and supported configuration for each required connection. A logo on an integration page does not establish that every product, data field, or action is supported.

Separate identity provisioning from risk signals

A directory connection can identify an employee without supplying the threat exposure or behavior data needed for a risk-based intervention. In the demonstration, distinguish the source of the person’s role from the source of the event that triggers learning.

For the eighty finance employees, ask why a participant receives payment-verification training. Is it because everyone in finance receives it, because a knowledge assessment identified a gap, or because a specific event triggered the assignment? All three approaches can be useful, but they support different claims about personalization.

Test changes and missing information

Move one participant from finance to another department. Ask what changes in future assignments, existing training, and historical reporting. Then inspect a participant with incomplete role information. The program needs a defined way to handle that condition without quietly making the management report misleading.

Have the implementation owner explain failed synchronization, an expired connection, and a delayed report. Decide who sees the problem and who resolves it. Record any recurring work that depends on a second team or a service provider.

Which reports should a CISO require from a ZenGuide alternative?

Require reports that separate participation, learning, simulation behavior, and real suspicious-message reporting. A course completion answers whether an employee finished an assignment. It does not independently establish that the employee recognized a later attack or that the security team acted on a report.

Use the report to decide where to intervene, which process needs attention, and what to test again. A useful dashboard should let the awareness manager explain those decisions to the CISO.

Normalize reporting rates before comparing platforms

Suppose an exercise selects 2,000 employees, reaches 1,800 eligible participants, and receives 180 employee reports. The reporting rate is 10% of the eligible group and 9% of the selected population. Both calculations can be correct; they answer different questions.

Now suppose fifty of those reports are repeated submissions from the same people. A count of messages reported differs from a count of unique participants who reported. Ask which metric the platform displays and whether the report makes that distinction clear.

Keep migration from rewriting the history

Two platforms can use different risk inputs, scoring weights, and time windows. A new score that looks lower is not proof that the workforce became safer during the transition. Retain the old definitions and create a new baseline in the replacement.

Preserve uncertainty when a source record is missing or an event cannot be attributed reliably. That lets management distinguish a behavior problem from an instrumentation or data-quality problem.

How should you compare Proofpoint awareness-training pricing and total cost?

Request a matched proposal for the actual program. For the 2,000-person example, include the same employee count, required simulations, learning, reporting, implementation, service responsibilities, and contract period. A public small-account price cannot establish the cost of that enterprise deployment.

The KnowBe4 source and SoSafe source support those public references. They are price anchors with specific conditions, not interchangeable quotes for the scenario.

What the public 1,000-seat KnowBe4 reference means

At the published 501–1,000-seat rates, a 1,000-seat Foundation subscription annualizes to $19,560, with $58,680 over three years. Advanced annualizes to $33,480, with $100,440 over three years. These calculations multiply the displayed monthly seat rate by the population and term; they do not change the agreement into a one-year contract.

Keep that 1,000-seat example separate from the 2,000-person enterprise evaluation. Ask for the actual larger-account proposal and compare required capabilities, not just the difference between package names.

Count retained systems and internal work

Suppose a CISO compares two proposals for the same 2,000-person program. Keep the assumptions visible:

In this comparison, Proposal B has the lower subscription and the higher recurring total by $4,560 per year. These are assumed proposal inputs, not prices assigned to any vendor. Replace them with written offers and the workload measured in your evaluation.

Add first-year implementation, overlap, and internal transition effort separately. If Proposal A requires $6,000 more in transition cost, its first-year total becomes $59,760, which is $1,440 above Proposal B before any transition cost for B. The decision changes with the ownership period and actual implementation scope.

Require clear commercial boundaries

Ask how active employees, new starters, contractors, departed users, and minimum commitments affect billing. Confirm implementation, custom content, support, integrations, history exports, and access after termination. Where a capability is not included, ask for the cost of providing it through the retained stack.

The best price comparison is a complete program description with a contract attached. A low seat rate leaves too much unresolved when learning, reporting, and service responsibilities differ.

What do verified Proofpoint and alternative reviews tell us?

Use reviews to identify work worth testing. The excerpts below preserve the public reviewer identity or anonymous role, review date, and direct individual-review link.

G2 marked Ernesto’s and Arathi’s reviews as incentivized G2 invitations. Jordan’s review was organic without invitation or incentive. Akshat’s review came through a G2 invitation without a G2 incentive; raktim’s was organic without invitation or incentive. The Hoxhunt review was vetted on TrustRadius.

Preserve the positive experience as well as the improvement request

Ernesto praised campaign creation and reporting while asking for more company-related video editing across awareness vendors. Jordan valued converting sophisticated attempts into awareness material while noting limitations in changing some email elements. Arathi praised responsive support while requesting more sender-address flexibility.

Those are dated individual experiences. Use them to design current demonstrations, rather than treat them as proof that a particular limitation persists in every configuration. The two Threatcop reviews concern smaller organizations than the 2,000-person scenario, so the enterprise workflow still needs its own evaluation.

How should CISOs test a Proofpoint awareness-training replacement?

Use a controlled evaluation with agreed participants, approved scenarios, and the teams responsible for learning and security operations. A practical comparison should include both the employee experience and the administrative work required to make it reliable.

For the 2,000-person organization, a sixty-person pilot could include twenty finance employees, twenty help-desk employees, and twenty general employees. Treat that as a manageable evaluation design, not a statistically representative measure of enterprise effectiveness.

Require each shortlisted vendor and the incumbent to work from the same task list. Record hands-on operator time, provider assistance, unresolved dependencies, and what would need additional configuration in production.

Test the handoff rather than just the button

The reporting button is the employee’s entry point. Continue the demonstration until the right security team can see the message, recognize its context, and carry out the agreed process. Also check the employee-facing response, so reporting reinforces a useful habit.

Distinguish a simulation report from a real suspicious-message report throughout the test. The awareness team and security operations team may need different information, and a correct training result should not create unnecessary incident work.

Test support with a concrete implementation question

Give each provider the same unresolved question, such as a safe test message failing to reach the intended reporting queue. Record the response, the owner assigned, and whether the answer resolves the issue in your proposed configuration. Compare that experience with the support entitlement in the contract, including any separate implementation service.

Ask a manager to interpret the result

Have a finance manager read the cohort report without a vendor presenting it. Ask what happened, who needs support, and what action the manager should take. If the manager cannot answer, inspect whether the report needs clearer definitions, more useful grouping, or a different presentation.

A successful demonstration should leave the organization with evidence it can use after the sales call. Capture the required configuration, the work remaining, and the commercial assumptions that affect delivery.

How do content, accessibility, and LMS requirements change the shortlist?

Compare the content employees will actually receive. A library count does not establish relevance to a payment-verification policy, help-desk identity process, or the languages and access needs of your workforce. Threatcop’s 2,000+ library across eight formats provides a broad starting point; the evaluation should select the specific material that meets each requirement.

Use participants from the affected roles, rather than ask the CISO alone to judge every course. The people who perform the process can identify where a lesson’s advice differs from the organization’s approved procedure.

Ask employees to practice the decision, then explain it

For the finance group, select a lesson that requires a choice about a changed payment instruction. Ask a participant to explain the approved verification step after completing it. For help-desk staff, use the same approach with an identity-verification request. This checks whether the content teaches a relevant decision rather than merely keeping the video playing.

Repeat the learning check later with a comparable scenario, keeping the audience and difficulty visible. Record whether the person applies the procedure, seeks help, or reports uncertainty. Treat the result as evidence from the evaluation; a small pilot does not establish a general breach-reduction percentage.

Also inspect the feedback after an incorrect response. It should explain the action employees can take next and support their willingness to report. Ask who can see individual results, which details a manager receives, and how employees can ask for help. These choices affect the experience as much as the course format.

Choose the authoritative learning record

If the LMS remains in place, decide whether the vendor platform or the existing LMS owns the completion record. Ask what is transferred, how identities match, and what happens when employees complete learning through different routes.

Keep content version and assignment context with the record where required. An employee may have completed the previous policy lesson correctly before the policy changed. A report should not quietly rewrite that historical completion to imply they completed the revised material.

Inspect generated content before assignment

When a platform generates a lesson or scenario from company material, review the result against the approved process. Confirm who can create, approve, revise, and assign it. A concise approval step can prevent an incorrect instruction from being repeated across the workforce.

Ask what happens when the source policy changes after a lesson has been created. The content owner needs to know whether a revision affects future assignments, people already learning, or completed records. These details can change the operating effort more than the speed of generating the first draft.

How can you switch training platforms without disrupting reporting?

Plan the transition around functions and records. The CISO owns the decision, but identity, email delivery, learning, security operations, procurement, and records owners each have work to complete. Set acceptance conditions before announcing a cutover.

Sequence the cutover so employees know how to report suspicious messages throughout the change. Where old and new reporting tools overlap, test which one is active and what happens to a message submitted through either route.

Avoid duplicate training and conflicting instructions

During overlap, two platforms can assign learning or send reminders to the same employee. Define which program controls each population and activity. An employee should not need to infer which message to follow or which completion record counts.

If an employee finishes a valid assignment before cutover, preserve that evidence. Decide whether the new platform needs a completion record, an imported history, or a documented external record; do not assume those options are interchangeable.

Verify evidence access before ending the agreement

Confirm the exportable records, their format, and how long access remains available. Keep the source definitions that explain historical reports. Test a sample export and ask the records owner to locate one participant, one completed course, and one simulation result.

The transition is ready when the operating path works and the required evidence remains usable. A signed replacement order is only one part of that readiness.

When is Threatcop the right Proofpoint training alternative?

Choose Threatcop when the priority is a visible assessment-to-learning process that the security team can operate and management can understand. Ask the team to demonstrate TSAT assessment, relevant TLMS education, progress tracking, and a report explaining the next action for a participant or department.

The US security awareness offering provides the category starting point. For a broader shortlist, Threatcop’s enterprise security awareness platform comparison and behavior-change tools guide provide related evaluation context.

Select two challengers whose strengths address the documented reason for evaluating a replacement. Keep the incumbent in the comparison until the challenger demonstrates the required outcome and the complete cost is understood.

For Threatcop, bring the finance process, help-desk scenario, reporting destination, LMS requirement, and management report to a scoped demonstration. Request a proposal for the products and services that make that process work in your environment.

FAQs about Proofpoint security awareness training alternatives

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.