8 Best Smishing Simulation Tools for Awareness Managers: SMS Reporting, Automation, and Pricing Compared

The best smishing simulation tool helps you run credible SMS tests, understand what employees did, and turn the result into relevant learning. Awareness managers should compare the complete mobile workflow: phone-number onboarding, message delivery, reporting, coaching, and the work required to run the next campaign.

Picture an awareness manager planning four SMS exercises for a 500-person company. Email reporting is familiar, but a payroll-themed text reaches employees on personal phones. A finance employee forwards a screenshot to a manager; another taps the link; a third never receives the message. The CISO wants to know which outcome represents risk—and whether the team can explain the difference.

Threatcop is our recommended starting point when you want customized smishing assessment connected to employee risk visibility and follow-up learning. Its smishing awareness and simulation offering combines targeted campaigns, individual or group vulnerability analysis, department reporting, training, and gamified assessment. Evaluate it alongside Keepnet and Arsen for SMS-specific operations, then add alternatives that match your existing program.

Updated October 21, 2026. Published by Threatcop. Confirm the current SMS configuration, commercial terms, and included services in your proposal.

Quick verdict: which smishing simulation tools should you shortlist?

• For assessment connected to learning: start with Threatcop TSAT and TLMS. Threatcop has assessed 5.7 million+ employees across simulation channels, while its learning offering includes a 2,000+ content library across eight formats. See its US platform overview.
• For a dedicated SMS simulator: compare Keepnet’s standalone product with the smishing scope in your Threatcop proposal. Match the same audience, campaign volume, reporting, and learning requirements.
• For tailored SMS and hybrid scenarios: evaluate Arsen’s SMS product alongside Adaptive Security’s multi-channel offering. Ask the operator to show how an SMS action connects to the next step.
• For an established Hoxhunt program: inspect its iOS reporting journey and managed SMS options. Demonstrate the reporting route for every device type in your workforce.
• For an existing enterprise awareness stack: investigate Proofpoint’s SMS assessment capability, Cimento’s Platform package, or Jericho Premium’s SMS simulations. Confirm production access separately from a trial or general training subscription.
• For the cost comparison: quote 500 eligible employees and four annual exercises consistently. Separate seats, message units, retries, services, and administrator time.

These recommendations describe fit for different buying situations. A platform’s place in the table is not a customer star rating or a measured effectiveness score. Your own phone environment and operating requirements should decide the final shortlist.

What should a real SMS phishing simulation include?

A smishing simulation sends a controlled text-message scenario to an approved participant and records the relevant response. An SMS awareness lesson can teach the same warning signs, but it does not establish whether the message reaches the employee’s phone or whether the employee can report it from there.

Separate three evaluation questions: can the platform deliver the exercise, can the employee take the intended safe action, and can your team interpret the result? A polished message editor answers only part of the first question.

Use this distinction to avoid buying a broad phishing platform on the strength of an email demonstration. Ask for the SMS journey on an approved test phone, followed by the employee report and the administrator’s final record.

Keep SMS, WhatsApp, and RCS requirements separate

A mobile-message strategy may include SMS, WhatsApp, or Rich Communication Services, but support for one channel does not establish support for all three. Sender presentation, message content, reporting, and commercial units can differ.

For a four-campaign plan, define the channel for each exercise. If two are SMS and two use a messaging application, request those exact configurations rather than a general promise of “mobile phishing.” The distinction also prevents an application-based result from being mistaken for an SMS outcome.

Test the response you want employees to repeat

An employee who avoids a link but never reports the message has behaved differently from one who sends it to security immediately. Decide which safe actions the exercise should encourage, then inspect whether the platform records them.

For a payroll lure, that might mean opening the trusted payroll application independently, contacting an established internal team, and reporting the suspicious text. The platform should help reinforce that sequence without requiring employees to submit real credentials or disclose personal information.

Which eight smishing simulation platforms deserve a closer look?

1. Threatcop: best starting point for customized assessment and connected learning

Threatcop’s smishing offering lets teams customize a scenario, target employee groups, analyze vulnerability, provide awareness content, and assess learning. Department-level reports make it relevant when the awareness manager must explain where the next intervention belongs.

Best for: teams that want the exercise and the follow-up training considered together. Pair Threatcop Security Awareness Training with the learning scope required for your program.

Workflow detail: the TSAT campaign guide describes previewing the message and associated pages, sending a test, and choosing immediate or scheduled launch. Its random mode requires at least four templates in the same category; the guide separately notes that random mode is unavailable for WhatsApp campaigns.

Pricing: obtain a proposal for your eligible headcount, SMS volume, learning scope, support, and required regions.

Pilot check: ask an operator to create one role-specific SMS scenario, send it to the test group, inspect the resulting record, and show the follow-up lesson. Verify the reporting path on the phones employees actually use.

Condition to resolve: put US sender configuration, message allowance, outcome definitions, and TSAT/TLMS responsibilities in writing. A general demonstration should lead to a specific operating proposal.

2. Keepnet: best for evaluating a dedicated smishing product

Keepnet’s Smishing Simulator describes customizable SMS scenarios, difficulty levels, interaction tracking, and targeted feedback. Its product can be purchased separately from the training library, making it relevant when another platform already handles learning.

Best for: awareness teams comparing a focused SMS addition with a broader program purchase. The standalone option gives procurement a useful alternative to replacing the entire awareness stack.

Pricing: request a headcount-based standalone quote or a scoped package. The pricing page, checked October 21, 2026, provides broader package reference rates and explains that single-product pricing requires a quote.

Pilot check: send a scenario to approved phones, report it, inspect the event, and assign the relevant follow-up. Ask how the system distinguishes a person tapping a link from automated URL inspection.

Condition to resolve: clarify the message units included, additional sending charges, regional sender options, support ownership, and how reports enter your existing security workflow. If training stays elsewhere, include the time needed to connect the two systems.

3. Arsen: best for tailored SMS and hybrid scenarios

Arsen’s SMS phishing product describes scenario-based or AI-generated text messages, targeted user groups, real-time behavior tracking, and hybrid exercises such as SMS plus email. Its SMS-specific description covers clicks, reports, and coaching outcomes.

Best for: teams that want the lure to reflect a role or business workflow rather than send the same generic text to everyone.

Pricing: request a proposal for the required SMS operation, audience, training, and support. A directory’s placeholder price does not establish the production cost of an SMS program.

Pilot check: create a message relevant to an approved employee role, then follow the event from phone interaction to learning record. If the scenario changes channels, show how the platform connects the participant and outcomes.

Condition to resolve: inspect an actual SMS report and export. Some reporting text on the product page refers to voice calls, so the demonstration should establish which event fields belong to SMS. Confirm delivery and sender options for your locations rather than infer them from broad geographic coverage.

4. Hoxhunt: best for SMS reporting within an established Hoxhunt program

Hoxhunt’s smishing guide, checked October 21, 2026, describes SMS exercises and an iOS reporting application. Employees can use the report flow to send a suspicious text to Hoxhunt, receive feedback, and access short training; the guide distinguishes simulation handling from real suspicious-message analysis.

Best for: organizations already using Hoxhunt that want to extend familiar practice and feedback into the SMS channel.

Pricing: obtain a quote for the required SMS service, geography, audience, and reporting scope. Its phishing-training overview describes SMS as a managed service, so confirm who creates, approves, and schedules each campaign.

Pilot check: demonstrate onboarding and reporting on an approved iPhone, then separately demonstrate the supported route for other required devices.

Condition to resolve: the documented iOS workflow should not become an assumption about every employee’s phone. Confirm application deployment, employee access, report routing, and managed-service turnaround before accepting the operating model.

5. Adaptive Security: best for SMS within a multi-channel simulation program

Adaptive Security’s feature and pricing page lists SMS phishing, multi-channel attack chains, recurring or randomized scheduling, group targeting, and exclusions. The broader offering includes modern impersonation scenarios and customized training.

Best for: security teams evaluating SMS as one part of a coordinated social engineering program, with a requirement to manage multiple exercise types.

Pricing: the page directs SMB buyers to a pricing inquiry and enterprise buyers to custom pricing. Obtain the SMS capacity and required training scope in the actual proposal.

Pilot check: run a controlled SMS example and ask the administrator to explain the connection between participant action, campaign outcome, and assigned learning. For a multi-channel exercise, inspect both the individual steps and the combined result.

Condition to resolve: a long feature list does not tell the awareness manager how much recurring work remains. Confirm which campaign choices are automated, which need approval, and whether support assists with phone delivery and reporting issues.

6. Proofpoint: best for SMS assessment alongside an enterprise awareness stack

Proofpoint’s assessment page documents simulated SMS attacks, template-based assessment, and targeted follow-up. That makes it a relevant evaluation when the organization already uses Proofpoint awareness or associated security tooling.

Best for: enterprise teams that want to investigate SMS assessment without introducing an unrelated reporting and training environment.

Pricing: request a proposal identifying the current product, SMS entitlement, campaign allowance, and services. Do not use an old package sheet as a current commercial commitment.

Pilot check: have the vendor show an SMS campaign, the mobile reporting path, and the resulting follow-up record. Explain which existing integrations are useful for SMS specifically.

Condition to resolve: the same assessment page also describes email reporting. An email report button does not demonstrate the employee’s SMS reporting experience. Confirm the exact mobile workflow, current product naming, and supported locations before treating existing stack ownership as a complete solution.

7. Cimento: best for SMS within broader human-risk operations

Cimento’s product overview includes SMS smishing simulation alongside email and voice, with scenarios informed by role and behavior. Its broader platform connects simulation with employee-risk measurement and training.

Best for: teams considering an SMS capability as part of a wider change to human-risk operations, rather than adding one isolated campaign tool.

Pricing: as checked October 21, 2026, Cimento’s pricing page places multi-channel simulations, including SMS, in its Platform package. It uses custom quotes and per-employee annual billing. The free baseline and Core scope should not be treated as equivalent to Platform SMS access.

Pilot check: demonstrate a live approved SMS exercise, the employee’s reporting route, and the event that drives the next learning action.

Condition to resolve: verify production delivery, supported phones, event detail, administrative permissions, and export behavior. Broad multi-channel positioning should translate into a working SMS process for the team that will own it.

8. Jericho Security: best for a trial-led SMS evaluation

Jericho Premium’s seven-day trial includes SMS simulation, voice and email simulation, dashboard, reporting, and SCIM integration. The trial provides a route to examine the product before a longer commitment.

Best for: teams that want an initial hands-on evaluation and can prepare approved participants and requirements before the trial starts.

Pricing: confirm paid-plan seats, SMS allowance, service costs, term, and support. A seven-day access period is a trial duration, not an implementation guarantee or a long-term price.

Pilot check: use the trial to inspect scenario creation, participant onboarding, SMS interaction, reporting, and learning handoff. Record which steps need help from the vendor.

Condition to resolve: establish whether the trial and proposed paid plan have the same production capabilities and capacity. Account for provisioning, sender readiness, employee approvals, and report integration rather than measuring success only by how quickly someone can log in.

How do Threatcop, Keepnet, and Arsen compare for an awareness manager?

Start with the operating model you want to own. Threatcop is a strong starting point for connecting customized assessment with learning. Keepnet offers a dedicated SMS product that can sit beside an existing training program. Arsen emphasizes tailored SMS and hybrid scenarios.

For the 500-person program, all three should demonstrate the same journey: create the audience, prepare a role-specific message, send a controlled test, interpret the response, and produce the next action. Changing the test between vendors makes their demonstrations harder to compare.

Choose based on the demonstrated workflow that your team can sustain. A dedicated simulator can be efficient if the learning handoff is already solved; a connected program can be more practical when the awareness manager otherwise has to reconcile outcomes manually.

Make the second campaign part of the demonstration

The first launch often benefits from close vendor attention. Ask the operator to prepare the next campaign using the same audience, remove someone who has left, add a new starter, change the lure, and update the report schedule.

Time the work your team performs. If one workflow needs several manual exports and another produces the required learning assignment directly, record that difference. The finding should come from the demonstrated configuration, not an assumption about either brand.

Which mobile reporting and phone-data features matter most?

The reporting route deserves as much attention as the lure. Employees need a practical action on the phone in their hand, while the awareness manager needs an attributable event and the security team needs a useful report.

An employee forwarding a screenshot may demonstrate caution, but the screenshot alone can lose the sender, link, timestamp, or participant context. Ask how the platform receives the relevant evidence and connects it to the campaign without collecting unrelated phone content.

Apply these requirements to the actual workforce. A centrally managed corporate-phone fleet and a bring-your-own-device population may need different onboarding, reporting, and support arrangements even at the same headcount.

Test shared numbers and employee changes

Suppose two staff members use the same on-call phone. A message interaction establishes something about the shared workflow; it may not establish which person acted. Decide whether the exercise should measure the team process or a named employee before assigning a score.

Include a changed number and a departed employee in the administrative test. Ask who updates the record, what happens to pending campaigns, and whether the old number remains visible in exports. A clean first import is not enough if routine changes create recurring reconciliation.

Confirm what happens after a real suspicious text is reported

A simulation program may receive a genuine attack report while an exercise is running. The employee should get a useful acknowledgement, and the security team should know whether it owns the next action.

Test one simulated message and one approved benign example submitted through the real-message route. Inspect destination, classification, response, and audit trail. Avoid assuming that a simulation dashboard automatically provides the incident-handling workflow your organization needs.

What should smishing simulation reports measure?

A useful SMS report separates reach, risky action, safe action, and learning. “No click” is an incomplete outcome: the employee may have recognized the lure, ignored all messages, never received it, or encountered a broken link.

For example, suppose 500 people are selected, 450 have eligible usable numbers, and 400 have delivery confirmations under the provider’s definition. If 40 people click, the click rate is 8% of the selected audience, 8.9% of eligible participants, or 10% of confirmed deliveries. The denominator changes the interpretation.

Choose the denominator before launch and show it beside the percentage. Keep unavailable delivery data visible as unavailable; do not convert missing information into a safe outcome or an employee failure.

Separate automated URL activity from employee decisions

A link can be inspected by security tooling or a preview service before an employee deliberately opens it. Ask each vendor to explain its SMS click-attribution method and show what an operator can inspect or correct.

A useful pilot includes one test message that is left untouched and another that an approved participant deliberately opens. Compare the records. If the system cannot distinguish the events confidently, preserve that uncertainty in the report rather than rewarding or penalizing the employee automatically.

Use reporting speed with an understandable starting point

Time-to-report needs a defined clock. Delivery time, first interaction, and campaign launch are different possible starting points; unavailable delivery data can make the comparison less precise.

Suppose an employee reports at 10:12 a.m., twelve minutes after a confirmed 10:00 a.m. delivery. That supports a twelve-minute delivery-to-report interval. If only the 9:00 a.m. campaign launch is known, label the longer launch-to-report interval accordingly. Do not present the two measurements as the same behavior.

Compare repeat behavior under comparable conditions

A lower click rate in the next campaign can be encouraging, but a different audience, easier lure, missing phone records, or reduced delivery can change the result. Keep those conditions in view when explaining progress.

For a four-exercise annual plan, record the audience, scenario, timing, report route, and known delivery limits for each exercise. The CISO should be able to see whether the program is building a useful verification and reporting habit, rather than merely receiving a sequence of percentages.

How much do smishing simulation tools cost?

The total cost combines the platform, SMS usage, required services, training, integrations, and internal work. A per-employee rate is useful only after the proposal explains what the employee can actually receive and what the awareness manager must still do.

Use one common brief: 500 eligible employees, four exercises per year, one initial outbound SMS per person per exercise, US delivery, an agreed reporting route, and targeted follow-up learning. That creates 2,000 initial message sends before replies, retries, multipart messages, or other campaign steps.

Request a complete annual cost and full-term commitment alongside the unit rate. A smaller software quote may still require more internal effort, while a broader package may include capabilities your SMS program does not need.

Use public package prices as a reference for a scoped quote

Keepnet’s public USD package grid, checked October 21, 2026, shows $1.40 to $2.55 per employee per month across its four package tiers for 101–500 employees, labeled with a three-year term. At 500 seats, that range equals $8,400–$15,300 annually, or $25,200–$45,900 over three years, before additional charges.

Those are package reference points. The same page offers standalone SMS purchasing through a custom quote; the grid alone does not settle your SMS allowance or the exact package you need. Compare the written scope with the same 2,000-send brief given to Threatcop and other shortlisted vendors.

Cimento’s Platform quote, Adaptive’s proposed package, Hoxhunt’s SMS service, Proofpoint’s current entitlement, Arsen’s proposal, and Jericho’s paid plan should answer the same capacity questions. A trial or free baseline is useful for evaluation but does not replace the production cost comparison.

Count message segments before comparing usage allowances

An SMS displayed as one conversation item can contain more than one billable segment. Twilio’s SMS documentation, checked October 21, 2026, describes 160 characters for a single GSM-7 segment and 70 for UCS-2; longer messages use smaller per-segment payloads, with specific toll-free exceptions.

The pricing consequence depends on your vendor’s contract and sending infrastructure. Ask whether credits count complete messages or segments, and preview the actual template’s encoding before approving volume. Translation, certain punctuation, or an emoji can change segmentation.

For the 2,000 initial sends, a template that consumes two units per send uses 4,000 units. At a quoted overage rate of $0.05 per unit, 2,000 additional units would add $100. Replace that assumed rate with the proposal’s actual unit definition and price; it is not a listed rate for any platform in this comparison.

Add the awareness manager’s time

Suppose each campaign requires six internal hours for audience preparation, scenario approval, launch checks, outcome review, and follow-up. Four campaigns create 24 hours of work. At an internal planning rate of $80 per hour, that is $1,920 a year.

If a demonstrated workflow reduces the requirement to three hours per campaign, the same model becomes twelve hours and $960 a year. The $960 difference helps compare operating models; it does not establish a guaranteed saving for a named vendor.

Include learner time separately when relevant. If 100 employees receive a four-minute follow-up, the learning requirement is 400 employee-minutes. That helps the program owner balance reinforcement with employee workload without assuming everyone needs the same lesson after every exercise.

What do verified customer reviews tell awareness managers?

Customer reviews can help assess content relevance, understandable reporting, and employee experience. Those are useful parts of the purchase, alongside direct evidence that the SMS workflow works for your phones and reporting process.

The following excerpts concern broader awareness-platform experiences. They should guide the demonstration questions; they do not establish comparative SMS delivery or smishing effectiveness.

G2 marks both Threatcop reviewers as validated. Akshat’s record identifies a G2 invitation without a G2 incentive; raktim’s record identifies an organic review without invitation or incentive. The Hoxhunt review is vetted and incentivized, and describes an end user’s email-training experience rather than SMS administration.

The Hoxhunt reviewer also raised concerns about absence handling and the effort required to complete learning steps. That makes leave, eligibility, and participation useful pilot checks; a 2024 experience should not be presented as proof of an unresolved 2026 product limitation.

Ask references about the SMS process they actually operate

For the final two vendors, request a reference with a similar device mix and program model. Ask who maintains phone records, how employees report, which delivery problems require vendor help, and how often administrators correct event attribution.

Keep the question specific: “What work did your team do to prepare the last SMS campaign?” is more useful than “Do you like the platform?” Ask about unexpected costs, support response during a campaign, and the effort needed to produce the leadership report.

Independent SMS-specific accounts of delivery, mobile reporting, and recurring administrative workload were not established for the full shortlist. Use a controlled pilot and relevant customer references to close those gaps before committing.

How should you pilot an SMS simulation platform?

Use a small approved group that represents your device types, employee roles, phone-number sources, and reporting routes. The purpose is to establish the operating process before expanding the audience; the pilot is not a contest to produce the lowest click rate.

Prepare two scenarios: one with a controlled link and one that exercises the reporting behavior you want. If replies or a channel change matter to your requirements, include that workflow explicitly rather than assuming the first scenario covers it.

Have your own operator produce the final report. A vendor-led demonstration can explain the product, but the recurring program should not depend on a specialist reconstructing outcomes every month.

Agree phone-data and scenario boundaries before sending

Identify who approves the audience, phone-number use, message content, sender configuration, and reporting access. Have the appropriate internal privacy, legal, HR, and security owners review the proposed operation and the provider’s requirements for your locations.

Choose realistic work situations without unnecessarily collecting sensitive information. Use controlled landing pages and harmless test inputs. Establish a clear stop and support path if a message reaches an unintended person or interferes with a real business process.

Use a scorecard with mandatory requirements first

Set mandatory conditions before assigning points: the SMS must reach the approved test environment, the intended reporting route must work, and phone-data handling must meet your organization’s requirements. A high average should not compensate for a failed mandatory condition.

For the remaining comparison, score each demonstrated requirement from one to five, where one means the required workflow needs substantial work and five means it is demonstrated with the evidence your team needs.

Calculate the weighted result as the sum of each score divided by five, multiplied by its percentage weight. A set of scores of 4, 4, 5, 3, 4, and 3 in this table produces 79 out of 100. These are example inputs for your evaluation, not assigned scores for any vendor.

Attach the demonstration evidence and unresolved conditions to the result. If a capability is described but has not been shown in the proposed configuration, keep that distinction visible in the procurement record.

Which smishing platform fits your team best?

Choose Threatcop when your priority is customized SMS assessment connected to employee or group risk visibility, department-level reporting, and a learning program. The case becomes strongest when your pilot demonstrates the whole journey from controlled message to relevant follow-up.

A different operating constraint can justify another shortlist. Keepnet’s standalone option is relevant when learning already works elsewhere. An existing Hoxhunt or Proofpoint deployment may justify checking the available SMS path before introducing a second environment. Arsen, Adaptive, Cimento, and Jericho merit attention when their particular multi-channel or evaluation model matches your requirements.

Do not replace an entire awareness stack merely to add a channel if an effective addition will meet the need. Equally, do not retain a fragmented process solely because it is familiar when every campaign requires manual reconciliation and unclear ownership.

Connect your evaluation to Threatcop’s learning management system if targeted reinforcement is part of the decision. Ask for the SMS event, assignment, completion record, and department report in the same demonstration.

Book a Threatcop demo with your headcount, device mix, annual campaign plan, and reporting requirements. Request a scoped proposal after the team has seen the workflow it will actually operate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Arpit Rao

Arpit Rao is a Product Manager at Kratikal, bringing a strong technical foundation and experience in building and managing cybersecurity products. His work spans product strategy, technology, user experience, and solving complex customer challenges. With a focus on translating technical capabilities into practical solutions, Arpit is interested in cybersecurity, AI, product innovation, and user-centric technology. He works on creating products that address evolving security and business needs.

Arpit Rao

Arpit Rao is a Product Manager at Kratikal, bringing a strong technical foundation and experience in building and managing cybersecurity products. His work spans product strategy, technology, user experience, and solving complex customer challenges. With a focus on translating technical capabilities into practical solutions, Arpit is interested in cybersecurity, AI, product innovation, and user-centric technology. He works on creating products that address evolving security and business needs.