GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Testing Services of 2026
Ranking roundup of the top 10 phishing testing services, covering scope, methods, and tradeoffs to help security teams shortlist providers.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Search agents gather the source set and the review record, including transcriptions of video reviews and podcasts.
Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Bishop Fox is the best pick for security teams running custom, evidence-driven phishing tests because its scenario engineering is tied to remediation actions rather than just click metrics, whereas Kroll fits when you want managed campaign orchestration across org units with outcome reporting centered on user interactions.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Bishop Fox
Evidence-grade scenario engineering and reporting tied to remediation actions, not only click metrics.
Best for: Fits when security teams need custom, evidence-driven phishing testing with controlled delivery and remediation mapping.
Kroll
Editor pickManaged campaign orchestration with security-oriented reporting tied to user interaction outcomes rather than only delivery statistics.
Best for: Fits when security teams want managed phishing testing and outcome reporting with repeatable execution across many org units.
Coalfire
Editor pickGovernance-led engagement design that packages scenario selection, execution, and outcome reporting for control-focused remediation.
Best for: Fits when security teams want phishing tests tied to control evidence and remediation workflows.
Comparison Table
Bishop Fox
specialistBishop Fox performs social engineering engagements that use phishing and related attack techniques.
Evidence-grade scenario engineering and reporting tied to remediation actions, not only click metrics.
Bishop Fox builds phishing scenario plans with delivery and measurement aligned to the organization’s objectives, then runs the engagement with clear artifacts for analysts and managers. The work typically includes mail-flow coordination for realistic reach, plus proof artifacts that demonstrate what users experienced and what telemetry was captured. Reporting supports operational follow-through by tying observed behaviors to recommended control changes.
A tradeoff is that custom scenario work increases coordination overhead and requires the security team to provide scope, systems, and approval checkpoints. Bishop Fox fits when teams want credential capture and BEC-style realism that exceeds simple phishing simulation templates, especially for targeted internal cohorts.
- +Custom phishing scenario engineering for higher-fidelity BEC patterns
- +Telemetry-focused reporting that supports actionable remediation decisions
- +Engagement delivery artifacts that clarify user exposure and results
- +Mail-flow and scenario coordination for controlled, realistic targeting
- –Custom work requires more coordination, approvals, and operational input
- –API and automation surface is limited compared with simulation-first vendors
- –Repeat campaigns depend on structured handoffs and scenario governance
- –Sandboxing constraints can limit experimentation with certain lures
Security program managers
Plan BEC-focused phishing test cycles
Remediation backlog prioritized by behavior
Email security engineering
Validate mail-flow and detection assumptions
Detection gaps documented with proof
Show 2 more scenarios
Security awareness leads
Assess credential submission susceptibility
Cohorts assigned based on results
Credential harvesting simulation is run with measurement artifacts that support training targeting decisions.
Compliance and risk owners
Demonstrate controlled phishing risk testing
Risk evidence captured for review
Scenario controls and reporting provide traceable evidence of what was tested and what users did.
Best for: Fits when security teams need custom, evidence-driven phishing testing with controlled delivery and remediation mapping.
Kroll
enterprise_vendorKroll conducts social engineering assessments that measure exposure to phishing and impersonation attacks.
Managed campaign orchestration with security-oriented reporting tied to user interaction outcomes rather than only delivery statistics.
Kroll delivers phishing testing services that pair simulated phishing campaigns with security awareness reporting designed for security teams. The service emphasizes managed campaign orchestration, scenario execution, and measurable outcomes like click-through rate and credential submission rate.
Kroll also targets enterprise governance needs through structured setup, controlled rollouts, and repeatable campaign delivery workflows. Expect a heavier services-led approach than self-serve simulation engines, with less emphasis on tool-building inside the customer’s own environment.
- +Services-led campaign orchestration reduces time spent on scenario execution setup
- +Reporting focuses on security-relevant metrics like click-through and credential submission
- +Structured onboarding supports controlled rollout and consistent testing across business units
- +Workflow attention supports user reporting and measurable follow-up outcomes
- –Less emphasis on self-serve configuration compared with automation-first simulation tools
- –Scenario execution workflows can depend on Kroll-managed scheduling and coordination
- –Integration depth with mail-flow telemetry varies by customer email stack
- –Admin governance breadth may feel constrained versus platforms built for granular RBAC
Best for: Fits when security teams want managed phishing testing and outcome reporting with repeatable execution across many org units.
Coalfire
enterprise_vendorCoalfire delivers social engineering and phishing assessments for security and compliance programs.
Governance-led engagement design that packages scenario selection, execution, and outcome reporting for control-focused remediation.
Coalfire provides phishing testing services as part of broader security assessment and compliance work, with delivery centered on scenario execution and security team reporting. Its distinct angle is governance-led engagement design that fits organizations already working through risk, controls, and remediation workflows rather than running standalone simulations.
Coalfire typically supports scenario scoping, audience targeting, and post-campaign outcomes that map to security awareness follow-through. Reporting focus centers on observed user behavior like click and submission rates and the effectiveness of the chosen scenario set.
- +Scenario scoping aligned to risk posture and internal control objectives
- +Clear campaign outcomes mapped to user behavior metrics for remediation planning
- +Engagement governance supports audit-ready documentation of testing approach
- +Works well when simulation needs coordination with other security assessment activities
- –Simulation operations depend on an engagement team rather than self-serve automation
- –Limited evidence of public API automation surface compared with simulation-first vendors
- –Scenario iteration speed can slow when changes require renewed planning
- –Admin controls and RBAC details are less visible than in dedicated awareness platforms
Best for: Fits when security teams want phishing tests tied to control evidence and remediation workflows.
GuidePoint Security
enterprise_vendorGuidePoint Security delivers social engineering assessments covering phishing and employee security behavior.
Engagement-driven campaign execution with operational reporting workflows that carry simulation outcomes into remediation action planning.
GuidePoint Security focuses on managed phishing testing that pairs engineered simulated phishing campaigns with operational support for reporting, escalation, and follow-through. The service is built around campaign orchestration choices like scenario design, targeted audience cohorting, and outcome tracking such as click-through and credential submission behaviors.
- +Managed campaign execution reduces internal coordination overhead
- +Scenario design support improves consistency across repeated tests
- +Result handling workflows map outcomes to remediation planning
- +Focused testing scenarios align to realistic email threat patterns
- –Less suited for teams needing fully self-serve automation
- –Integration and data extraction depend on engagement coordination
- –Iteration cadence can be limited by review and approvals workflow
- –Granular simulation scheduling requires clear partner handoff
Best for: Fits when security teams need a managed phishing testing partner and structured follow-through into remediation planning.
Accenture
enterprise_vendorAccenture delivers security awareness and social engineering testing services for large enterprises.
Consulting-led simulation program governance that ties scenario outcomes to remediation evidence and operational reporting, not only awareness metrics.
Accenture delivers phishing testing through managed security consulting that pairs simulation design with enterprise delivery workflows. Engagement teams typically translate security requirements into scenario creation, campaign orchestration, and measurable outcomes like click-through and credential submission behavior.
- +Managed phishing scenario design tied to client threat modeling outcomes
- +Campaign orchestration supports repeat measurements like susceptibility drift
- +Security engineering involvement improves evidence handling for audits and remediation
- +Works across enterprise constraints on data access and reporting workflow
- –Less suitable for teams needing self-serve simulation configuration
- –Integration work can require mail-flow and identity system coordination
- –Automation surface is often engagement-driven rather than API-first
- –Scenario iteration speed depends on services scheduling and approvals
Best for: Fits when large enterprises need managed phishing programs integrated with security operations and user reporting workflows.
NetSPI
enterprise_vendorNetSPI provides social engineering penetration testing that includes phishing simulations against authorized targets.
Credential harvesting simulation uses a built-in credential capture workflow that measures submission outcomes tied to specific user cohorts.
NetSPI delivers phishing simulation and credential-focused test scenarios built around attack pathways used in credential theft. It supports scenario-based campaign orchestration that lets teams target defined user cohorts and collect click and credential submission outcomes for reporting.
- +Campaign orchestration ties scenario targeting to measured user outcomes
- +Mail flow and telemetry integration reduces reporting gaps versus manual exports
- +Credential harvesting scenario execution supports realistic credential capture workflows
- +Repeated campaign configuration helps track behavior changes over time
- –Scenario setup and targeting require careful upfront scoping to avoid noisy results
- –Less granular scenario authoring limits teams that need heavily custom creative
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed phishing campaign execution with telemetry-backed reporting and controlled targeting.
Rapid7
enterprise_vendorRapid7 provides consulting-led social engineering assessments that can evaluate phishing exposure.
Operational reporting that links phishing simulation outcomes to broader Rapid7 security program workflows for closed-loop visibility.
Rapid7 is a phishing simulation and awareness-training offering that ties scenario execution and reporting to broader security operations workflows. It is distinct for its fit inside Rapid7-centric security stacks, with tight operational alignment around exposure, remediation follow-through, and measurable user outcomes.
- +Good fit for teams already running Rapid7 products and security workflows
- +Campaign reporting connects simulated outcomes to training assignment status
- +Scenario delivery supports realistic phishing email and landing-page style credential collection
- –Setup complexity is higher than simpler awareness-only simulators
- –Email telemetry and training workflows depend on correct integration wiring
- –Scenario variety and message customization feel narrower than specialist phishing test suites
Best for: Fits when Rapid7-aligned security teams need recurring phishing testing with operational reporting and remediation follow-through.
Red Siege
specialistRed Siege performs social engineering and phishing assessments as part of offensive security engagements.
Landing-page credential capture tied to each campaign run, with operational guidance to keep retests consistent.
Red Siege supports end-to-end simulated phishing campaigns that combine scenario creation, audience targeting, and result reporting in a single operational workflow. Credential harvesting simulations use configurable landing pages that track credential capture outcomes tied to the campaign run. The service model includes human input into scenario fit and execution so teams can iterate based on observed click and credential submission patterns.
- +Managed campaign orchestration for realistic, repeatable phishing tests
- +Landing pages capture credential submissions with scenario-level tracking
- +Reporting connects clicks to credential submission and repeat exposure
- +User reporting workflow support to measure reporting rate behavior
- –Customization can be limited for teams requiring deep mail-flow integration
- –Admin governance controls need planning to manage cohort and retest cadence
Best for: Fits when security teams want managed phishing simulation execution with credential-capture landing pages.
TrustedSec
specialistTrustedSec conducts phishing campaigns and social engineering tests as part of offensive security engagements.
Human-led campaign design and oversight that tunes scenario difficulty to produce comparable results across repeat runs.
TrustedSec is built around end-to-end campaign orchestration, including audience cohort selection, message construction, and landing page style flows that support credential capture testing. Managed delivery reduces internal coordination overhead for mail-flow integration and scenario readiness. Reporting focuses on operational phishing outcomes and user journey results instead of generic click-only dashboards.
- +Managed execution yields realistic, consistent phishing simulation runs
- +Scenario tailoring supports credential harvesting simulation without generic templates
- +Outcome reporting ties observed behavior to training and remediation next steps
- +Dedicated workflow coordination reduces mail-flow and stakeholder friction
- –Self-serve API and automation surface is limited for fully automated programs
- –Repeat campaigns require scheduling discipline to keep cohorts and difficulty consistent
- –Governance controls depend on engagement scope instead of granular RBAC
- –Landing page and credential capture flows require clear approval cycles
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed phishing testing with repeatable cohorts and behavior-driven reporting.
Social-Engineer, LLC
specialistSocial-Engineer, LLC conducts phishing, vishing, smishing, and physical social engineering assessments.
Custom credential-harvesting simulation workflows that include landing-page credential capture steps and behavior reporting.
Social-Engineer, LLC is a phishing testing service provider focused on credential-focused social engineering scenarios rather than pure email-only simulations. Engagements typically generate and run custom simulated phishing emails, capture flows, and controlled landing page experiences to measure user response end-to-end.
- +Custom scenario design aimed at credential harvesting outcomes
- +End-to-end simulation coverage from email to credential capture
- +Actionable reporting tied to click and credential submission behavior
- +Repeat engagements can refine scenario difficulty based on results
- –Service-led delivery can slow iteration versus self-serve orchestration
- –Extensibility and API automation surface are not the primary model
- –Governance controls like RBAC and audit logs may be limited for internal scale
- –Non-email channels like smishing and vishing are not consistently emphasized
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed, credential-focused phishing testing tied to measured submission outcomes.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 phishing testing, Bishop Fox stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right Phishing Testing
Phishing testing services translate realistic phishing scenarios into measurable outcomes for security teams. This buyer's guide covers Bishop Fox, Kroll, Coalfire, GuidePoint Security, Accenture, NetSPI, Rapid7, Red Siege, TrustedSec, and Social-Engineer, LLC.
The services vary in how they engineer scenarios, orchestrate delivery, and map results to remediation action planning. The selection criteria focus on evidence-grade reporting, coordination versus self-serve execution, and the practical depth of integration and automation support.
Phishing Testing services that validate user risk with controlled simulated attacks
Phishing testing runs controlled phishing scenarios to measure user behavior like click-through and credential submission during repeatable campaigns. Providers such as Bishop Fox emphasize evidence-grade scenario engineering and reporting tied to remediation actions rather than only click metrics.
Managed campaign orchestration also appears as a core delivery model, with Kroll executing campaigns and reporting outcomes tied to user interaction results. NetSPI pairs credential harvesting simulation with cohort targeting and mail-flow and telemetry integration to reduce reporting gaps versus manual exports.
Evidence-grade scenario engineering and closed-loop reporting
Phishing testing services need more than click-through rate collection. Bishop Fox ties evidence-grade scenario engineering and reporting to remediation actions instead of stopping at delivery and interaction metrics.
Closed-loop reporting also determines whether a test changes outcomes. Rapid7 links simulation results to broader security program workflows, while Kroll or GuidePoint Security tie campaign reporting to user interaction outcomes that can feed follow-up training and remediation planning.
Scenario engineering quality and repeatability
Bishop Fox builds evidence-grade phishing scenarios that support remediation-focused decisions. TrustedSec adjusts scenario difficulty with human-led oversight to produce comparable results across repeat runs.
Remediation-linked outcome reporting
Bishop Fox connects telemetry to remediation actions rather than only click metrics. Coalfire maps outcomes to control-focused remediation planning with governance-led engagement design.
Managed orchestration and execution workflow
Kroll provides services-led campaign orchestration that reduces internal setup time across org units. GuidePoint Security and Accenture also operate with engagement-driven execution that carries results into remediation action planning.
Credential capture workflows for credential harvesting simulation
NetSPI uses a built-in credential capture workflow that measures submission outcomes tied to targeted cohorts. Red Siege and Social-Engineer, LLC run landing-page credential capture steps that track credential submissions per campaign run.
Telemetry and integration wiring for reporting continuity
NetSPI emphasizes mail-flow and telemetry integration to reduce reporting gaps versus manual exports. Rapid7 relies on correct integration wiring so email telemetry and training workflows connect to operational reporting.
Governance packaging for control evidence and remediation planning
Coalfire packages scenario selection, execution, and outcome reporting around control evidence. Accenture provides consulting-led program governance that ties scenario outcomes to remediation evidence and operational reporting.
Choose by execution model, reporting target, and integration depth
Phishing testing buyers usually face a choice between managed execution and automation-first self-serve simulation. Bishop Fox and Coalfire focus on evidence-grade scenario and governance-led engagement execution, while NetSPI and Rapid7 are more sensitive to integration wiring for telemetry and training workflows.
Next, the target of the reporting must drive the provider choice. Kroll, GuidePoint Security, and Accenture emphasize security-relevant outcomes and operational follow-through, while Red Siege and Social-Engineer, LLC center campaign runs on landing-page credential capture with scenario-level tracking.
Start with how the provider delivers and schedules the tests
Select Kroll when managed campaign orchestration across org units reduces internal scenario execution setup. Select TrustedSec or Coalfire when consistent cohorts and controlled difficulty depend on human-led oversight or governance-led engagement design.
Define whether results must map to remediation actions or only user behavior
Pick Bishop Fox when reporting must support remediation decisions tied to evidence-grade scenario engineering. Pick Rapid7 when phishing simulation outcomes must connect to recurring security program workflows with training assignment status.
Choose the credential capture model for credential harvesting simulation
Choose NetSPI when credential harvesting uses a built-in credential capture workflow tied to specific user cohorts and measurable submission outcomes. Choose Red Siege or Social-Engineer, LLC when landing-page credential capture is a core part of campaign execution with scenario-level submission tracking.
Set integration expectations based on telemetry and training workflow dependencies
Choose NetSPI when mail-flow and telemetry integration is needed to avoid reporting gaps from manual exports. Choose Rapid7 when correct integration wiring is available so email telemetry and training workflows feed operational reporting.
Align governance needs to the provider’s control evidence approach
Choose Coalfire when scenario scoping must align to risk posture and internal control objectives with outcome mapping for remediation planning. Choose Accenture when large enterprise program governance must tie phishing scenario outcomes to remediation evidence and operational reporting.
Security teams that need controlled Phishing Testing with measurable outcomes
Security leaders need phishing testing services when simulated attacks must translate into measurable user behavior and decision-grade outcomes. Bishop Fox supports teams that require evidence-grade scenario engineering tied to remediation actions rather than only click metrics.
Operational teams also benefit when execution and reporting connect to broader security programs. Rapid7 supports teams running Rapid7-aligned security workflows, while Kroll and GuidePoint Security support organizations that need managed execution to reduce internal coordination overhead.
Security operations teams tying simulation outcomes into security program workflows
Rapid7 connects phishing simulation outcomes to operational reporting workflows and training assignment status when integration wiring is correctly implemented.
Enterprise security teams managing repeat testing across multiple org units
Kroll focuses on managed campaign orchestration that repeats execution across org units with reporting tied to user interaction outcomes.
Control-focused security programs needing evidence-grade remediation mapping
Coalfire and Accenture package scenario selection and outcome reporting around control evidence and remediation workflows.
Teams running credential harvesting validation with cohort-targeted outcomes
NetSPI measures credential submission outcomes tied to targeted cohorts using its credential capture workflow.
Organizations that prefer landing-page credential capture in the testing workflow
Red Siege and Social-Engineer, LLC run landing-page credential capture tied to each campaign run and provide operational guidance for retests.
Common pitfalls when Phishing Testing becomes a metrics-only exercise
Many programs fail when scenario execution and reporting do not connect to a remediation pathway. Bishop Fox avoids this by tying evidence-grade reporting to remediation actions, while services like Kroll focus reporting on security-relevant user interaction outcomes.
Other failures come from mismatched execution governance. TrustedSec requires scheduling discipline to keep cohorts and scenario difficulty consistent across repeat runs, and NetSPI requires careful upfront scoping to avoid noisy results from mis-targeting or unclear cohorts.
Assuming click-through rate alone will support remediation decisions
Bishop Fox reports outcomes tied to remediation actions rather than only interaction metrics. Rapid7 also emphasizes operational reporting connections to broader security workflows.
Running retests without controlling cohort consistency and scenario difficulty
TrustedSec uses human-led oversight to tune scenario difficulty, but repeat campaigns still require scheduling discipline to keep cohorts consistent. Bishop Fox requires coordination and operational input for custom scenario work that supports evidence-grade repeatability.
Skipping credential capture workflow design for credential harvesting testing
NetSPI measures submission outcomes through a built-in credential capture workflow tied to cohorts. Red Siege and Social-Engineer, LLC rely on landing-page credential capture steps that must be governed to keep submission tracking reliable.
Treating integration wiring as an afterthought for telemetry and training workflow reporting
Rapid7 depends on correct integration wiring so email telemetry and training workflows connect to operational reporting. NetSPI reduces reporting gaps through mail-flow and telemetry integration, but upfront scoping is still needed for clean results.
How analysts built this Phishing Testing shortlist
Analysts reviewed provider material for phishing testing services and extracted specific claims about scenario design, orchestration, and reporting outcomes. Analysts compared each extracted figure against official documentation, provider changelogs, and cited third-party commentary when that commentary was present. The shortlist highlights Bishop Fox because evidence-grade scenario engineering and reporting explicitly tie to remediation actions, while the rest of the set emphasizes managed campaign execution, landing-page credential capture, control-focused engagement packaging, or integration-sensitive reporting workflows.
Frequently Asked Questions About Phishing Testing
How do Bishop Fox and Red Siege handle scenario evidence beyond click metrics?
Which providers focus on managed campaign orchestration for repeatable testing across org units?
What integration and API options matter most for mail-flow telemetry and reporting pipelines?
How do Secure-identity controls like RBAC and audit logging affect phishing test governance?
When do services like Coalfire and Social-Engineer differ in what gets tested end to end?
What breaks if a team needs highly bespoke mail-flow integration or nonstandard telemetry pipelines?
Which providers best support credential-harvesting style testing and measurable credential submission outcomes?
How does each provider reduce the coordination burden for security teams during setup and execution?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Funding and competing interests
This study was co-funded by several of the vendors assessed in it. No single vendor funded it. Funders could propose the market studied.
They had no role in selecting vendors, setting or weighting criteria, analysing data or drawing conclusions, and they received the same factual-accuracy check as every other vendor assessed.
Market definition, inclusion rules and criteria weights were fixed by an editor before research began and did not change afterwards. Editorial process →
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Protection Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Application Penetration Testing Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Takedown Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Testing Software of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Email Testing Software of 2026
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Cybersecurity Information Security alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of cybersecurity information security tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare cybersecurity information security tools→