
GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Simulated Phishing Services of 2026
Editorial roundup comparing simulated phishing services and where they fit for security teams, with tradeoffs and selection notes for review.
How we ranked these tools
Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.
Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe 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
Kroll is the best choice for security teams needing managed, governed phishing simulations across units because it runs campaigns with strong operational control and a remediation handoff, while Coalfire is a strong alternative for governance-led programs since its credential-harvesting workflows are tied to coordinated follow-up outcomes.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Kroll
Managed delivery with governance-oriented campaign operations and remediation handoff rather than configuration-only tooling.
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed, governed phishing simulations with consistent execution across units.
Optiv
Editor pickManaged delivery that coordinates campaign design, scheduling, and measurement follow-through across recurring programs.
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed phishing simulations with steady execution and governance across groups.
Coalfire
Editor pickCredential-harvesting simulation is handled as a governed workflow tied to coordinated follow-up outcomes.
Best for: Fits when security governance teams need managed phishing simulations with controlled rollout and consistent reporting.
Comparison Table
Kroll
enterprise_vendorRuns social engineering and phishing assessments as part of its cybersecurity consulting services.
Managed delivery with governance-oriented campaign operations and remediation handoff rather than configuration-only tooling.
Kroll supports phishing simulation campaign planning that can include both click tracking and credential-capture style exercises, with results used to drive user-level remediation. Program delivery is positioned for centralized administration, which matters for teams managing multiple business units and recurring measurement windows. The service model also fits environments where IT and security must coordinate identity and delivery constraints rather than only configuring templates.
A tradeoff appears in the degree of hands-on work required for operational alignment, since strong outcomes depend on agreed campaign rules, tracking expectations, and reporting distribution. Kroll fits situations where internal teams want the simulation run with tight governance, like regulated organizations that need consistent methodology and controlled rollout timing. Organizations that only need fast template-based testing often find the coordination overhead heavier than a pure self-serve approach.
- +Managed campaign execution with governance-focused operational control
- +Credential-harvesting simulation workflows aligned to user remediation
- +Behavior reporting designed for repeatable baseline and follow-up cycles
- +Program administration approach supports multi-team rollout rules
- –Integration and execution success depends on coordinated internal stakeholders
- –Less suited to teams needing rapid self-serve template iteration
Security program managers
Run recurring phishing cycles with governance
Repeatable measurement and remediation rhythm
IT and IAM teams
Coordinate delivery constraints for identity
Fewer campaign disruption events
Show 1 more scenario
Compliance and risk owners
Demonstrate consistent security awareness outcomes
Clearer accountability for training gaps
Centralized administration supports structured reporting that maps behavior to training follow-through.
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed, governed phishing simulations with consistent execution across units.
Optiv
enterprise_vendorDelivers social engineering assessments and security awareness services for enterprise clients.
Managed delivery that coordinates campaign design, scheduling, and measurement follow-through across recurring programs.
Optiv delivers phishing simulation campaigns with operational support around content selection, scenario pacing, and measurement used for baseline-versus-follow-up outcomes. It is most credible when a security team needs consistent delivery across multiple user groups and recurring scheduling instead of one-off template runs.
A key tradeoff is that managed execution and program governance tend to reduce how much control internal teams can exert over every low-level campaign setting. Optiv fits situations where an organization needs dependable stakeholder coordination, such as rolling out business email compromise and spear-phishing simulations while maintaining reporting discipline.
- +Managed campaign execution helps keep simulation calendars consistent
- +Scenario coverage includes link-based and attachment-based phishing patterns
- +Measurement and reporting support baseline and follow-up effectiveness checks
- +Program governance reduces ad hoc changes that break comparability
- –Tighter internal control over every setting can be harder during managed delivery
- –Full integration depth depends on how identity and reporting workflows are structured
Security awareness leads
Run ongoing BEC simulations
Cleaner baseline and trend visibility
IT and identity integration teams
Tie users to access workflows
Less scope drift across users
Show 2 more scenarios
Compliance and audit stakeholders
Maintain repeatable measurement
More defensible training outcomes
Optiv operationalizes consistent campaign configurations to support comparable baseline-versus-follow-up measurement.
Security program managers
Segment risky user groups
Better user-risk prioritization
Optiv uses click and report behavior to inform targeted training assignments and pacing decisions.
Best for: Fits when security teams need managed phishing simulations with steady execution and governance across groups.
Coalfire
specialistDelivers social engineering penetration tests with phishing and physical security components.
Credential-harvesting simulation is handled as a governed workflow tied to coordinated follow-up outcomes.
Coalfire fits teams that want managed phishing simulation campaigns with governance controls aligned to security program reporting. The engagement typically covers campaign design, template selection for phishing email, and coordination of delivery behaviors that map to internal policies. Reporting is geared toward security stakeholders who need consistent measurement between baseline and follow-up campaigns rather than only per-user outcomes.
A key tradeoff is the delivery model tends to favor structured operations over rapid self-service changes, so fast iteration can take longer than purely software-led platforms. Coalfire works best when a team needs centralized control for credential-harvesting simulation and wants the security function to set constraints for messaging, timing, and follow-up.
- +Governance-minded campaign operations for security-led programs
- +Supports credential-harvesting simulation workflows and follow-up design
- +Security-focused reporting cadence for baseline versus follow-up comparison
- +Structured rollout coordination reduces policy drift across campaigns
- –Less self-serve agility than software-first phishing simulation platforms
- –Integration automation depends on engagement scoping rather than plug-and-play
- –Template and scenario iteration can move slower than ad hoc changes
- –Operational handoffs require clear internal ownership for best results
Security program managers
Baseline and follow-up phishing readiness
Consistent measurement across cycles
IT operations leaders
Credential-harvesting simulations with constraints
Lower policy and process risk
Show 1 more scenario
Security awareness owners
Template-based spear-phishing scenarios
Better user response trends
Selects and manages phishing email template scenarios with structured timing and follow-through.
Best for: Fits when security governance teams need managed phishing simulations with controlled rollout and consistent reporting.
GuidePoint Security
specialistProvides social engineering testing that measures employee exposure to phishing and impersonation.
Service-led campaign governance pairs scenario design with controlled execution and remediation-ready reporting for awareness operations.
GuidePoint Security delivers managed phishing simulation campaigns with scenario authoring, click and credential capture paths, and reporting designed for security awareness operations. The service favors tight campaign governance, including controlled rollout patterns and behavior-based reporting for remediation and follow-up.
- +Managed campaign operations reduce internal overhead for email simulation rollout
- +Scenario workflows support both click tracking and credential-harvesting paths
- +Behavior-focused reporting helps prioritize remediation and follow-up sessions
- +Enterprise workflow integration supports common identity and learning patterns
- –Service-led onboarding means less self-serve experimentation than DIY tools
- –Template and scenario changes can require coordination rather than instant edits
- –Advanced governance requires clear responsibilities between security and operators
- –Admin visibility into every low-level delivery and capture control can be limited
Best for: Fits when security teams want managed phishing simulation execution and behavior-focused remediation reporting.
NCC Group
enterprise_vendorProvides social engineering assessments covering phishing, impersonation, and employee response.
Services-led scoping that ties simulation execution and reporting to security operations and remediation workflows.
NCC Group runs phishing simulation engagements with a services-first delivery model that pairs campaign execution with reporting intended for security teams. It supports multiple simulation formats through engagement scoping that includes email template work, targeting rules, and post-send measurement on user behavior.
- +Services-led campaign setup reduces internal coordination overhead
- +Reporting focus aligns with security-team decision cycles
- +Engagement scoping supports tailored targeting and measurement goals
- +Remediation guidance supports follow-through after simulations
- –Less self-serve automation than platforms with full admin tooling
- –Integration and workflow tailoring can be engagement dependent
- –Mail-client add-in depth may be limited versus specialist SaaS tools
- –Rapid iteration depends on turnaround from the delivery team
Best for: Fits when security teams want managed phishing simulations and stakeholder-ready reporting, with integration shaped by the engagement.
Bishop Fox
specialistPerforms social engineering engagements that test phishing susceptibility and employee reporting behavior.
Bespoke simulation design that maps campaign content to credible attacker behavior patterns.
Bishop Fox supports security teams by running phishing simulations with an incident-response and offensive-security services background. Its distinct value comes from campaign work that can be tailored around realistic adversary behavior patterns rather than only template-driven awareness drills.
- +Phishing scenarios designed to reflect credible attacker tradecraft
- +Credential-harvesting simulation flows built for controlled collection
- +Engagement reporting aligned to security program goals
- +Project delivery that can incorporate constraints and stakeholder input
- –Operational ownership shifts to services delivery versus self-serve tooling
- –Automation and API surface are limited compared with product-led simulators
- –Less admin depth for granular governance compared with SaaS platforms
- –Campaign throughput depends on engagement staffing and scheduling
Best for: Fits when teams want adversary-realistic simulations delivered as a managed security service.
VikingCloud
enterprise_vendorProvides social engineering assessments and security awareness services for commercial organizations.
Outcome-linked remediation messaging that maps user click or report behavior to tailored follow-on training steps.
VikingCloud is a phishing simulation and security awareness training provider that differentiates through a workflow-first approach to campaign execution and reporting. It supports realistic phishing email template creation with both link and attachment styles, then ties outcomes to remediation messaging for end users who report or click.
- +Campaign templates make link and attachment simulations easy to repeat
- +Reporting focuses on user behavior patterns from click and report workflows
- +Scheduling and targeting support ongoing baseline versus follow-up tracking
- +Training assignment logic connects outcomes to follow-on learning content
- –Advanced governance requires more administrator configuration than simpler tools
- –Deep identity integration options are not as broad as some enterprise platforms
- –Template customization can take time for teams needing exact brand fidelity
- –Automation extensibility depends on feature availability in specific deployments
Best for: Fits when security teams run recurring phishing campaigns and want consistent reporting plus remediation-driven training workflows.
BreachLock
specialistDelivers managed penetration testing and social engineering assessments, including phishing exercises.
Credential-harvesting simulations with landing capture and click-through measurement in one campaign workflow.
BreachLock runs phishing simulation campaigns for security awareness programs with a focus on repeatable execution and measurable user behavior. It supports multiple phishing formats, including credential-harvesting scenarios and click-through tracking, so teams can map user engagement to downstream report patterns.
- +Campaign builder supports credential-harvesting and interactive landing flows
- +Click-through tracking aligns user behavior with reporting and remediation
- +Scheduling and wave management reduce operational effort for repeated tests
- +Audit logs track campaign actions and user-level outcomes for governance
- –Integration depth depends heavily on identity-provider and directory setup
- –Advanced targeting requires careful list and cohort maintenance
- –Phish template customization stays constrained versus broader design toolkits
- –Reporting breadth can feel limited without disciplined campaign taxonomy
Best for: Fits when security teams need consistent phishing waves with governance-grade reporting and behavior tracking.
Social-Engineer, LLC
specialistConducts phishing, vishing, smishing, and broader social engineering assessments.
Credential-harvesting simulation flows that guide users through a realistic landing-page experience before capture.
Social-Engineer, LLC runs credential-harvesting phishing simulations built around realistic deception flows and landing-page capture for safe credential collection. It also supports attachment-based and link-based campaigns with click-through tracking and user follow-up triggers tied to reporting behavior.
- +Landing-page credential-harvesting simulations with tight scenario scripting
- +Attachment and link campaign formats for varied social-engineering lures
- +Click-through tracking to measure engagement beyond open rates
- +Reporting-driven follow-up workflows for clearer user accountability
- –Scenario setup requires more content authoring and training alignment
- –Integration depth for identity-provider and LMS workflows appears limited versus enterprise suites
- –Administrative governance controls are less granular than RBAC-heavy products
- –Campaign reporting can feel workflow-centric instead of dashboard-centric
Best for: Fits when security teams want scenario-driven phishing simulations with landing-page credential capture.
TrustedSec
specialistProvides social engineering assessments that include phishing campaigns and employee testing.
Credential-capture landing page campaigns paired with response tracking and follow-through actions for user behavior remediation.
TrustedSec delivers simulated phishing and security awareness workflows with a focus on campaign execution, tracking, and follow-through actions for reporting and training. The service model is geared toward teams that want more managed guidance than self-serve tooling, with templates, structured campaigns, and operational coordination around who receives which simulation.
- +Managed campaign setup reduces friction for security awareness rollouts
- +Credential-harvesting simulation supports safe credential capture workflows
- +Click-through and reporting behavior tracking supports targeted reinforcement
- +Integration support fits directory-aligned user assignment needs
- –Workflow coordination depends on service engagement rather than pure self-serve
- –Advanced customization needs additional configuration and governance review
- –Some automation depth may lag highly engineered, in-house integration requirements
- –Reporting customization can require ongoing operational support
Best for: Fits when security teams need operationally guided phishing simulations with strong execution and response tracking.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 simulated phishing, Kroll 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.
Frequently Asked Questions About Simulated Phishing
How do Bishop Fox and Social-Engineer, LLC tailor campaigns beyond templates?
Which provider pairs credential-capture simulation with landing-page measurement workflows?
What operational control does Kroll provide when security teams need consistent execution across business units?
How do GuidePoint Security and VikingCloud handle baseline versus follow-up measurement in recurring programs?
Where does admin governance differ between BreachLock and TrustedSec for role separation and audit trails?
How do Bishop Fox and NCC Group differ in delivery model and onboarding effort?
Which provider is a stronger fit when simulations must align with identity or directory workflows?
What breaks if a simulation workflow cannot capture safe credential outcomes reliably?
When security teams need attachment-based and link-based coverage under the same program, which providers support that mix?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
How to Choose the Right Simulated Phishing
In simulated phishing, the real differentiator is how well a tool controls and proves what happened in your tests. We focus on choices like reporting accuracy, scenario coverage, and automation that match your workflow.
Scenario type coverage
Why it matters
Scenario type coverage matters because simulated phishing only changes behavior when the scenarios resemble what users face. If link-only or credential-only tests dominate, your program may miss the real failure modes.
How to check
On a demo, filter the scenario library by common lures (links, attachments, and credential pages) and confirm what is available as ready-made content. Then ask whether you can create a custom scenario with the same mechanics and validate it in a sandbox run.
Targeting and scope controls
Why it matters
Targeting and scope controls matter because simulated phishing should reach the right groups without accidentally testing everyone. Good scoping also supports controlled baselines before you expand coverage.
How to check
Check how you choose recipients: group selection, exclusions, and scheduling windows. Ask how many overlapping audiences are supported and run a sample blast to confirm the audience preview matches the actual send log.
Reporting and audit log detail
Why it matters
Reporting and audit log detail matters because you need to verify outcomes, not just completion. With simulated phishing, missing timestamps or unclear event definitions make results hard to trust.
How to check
Generate a report for a recent simulated run and verify it includes events like delivery, open/click behavior (where applicable), and submission outcomes where used. Ask to export the underlying event history and confirm the dashboard numbers match the export.
API and automation surface
Why it matters
API and automation surface matter when simulated phishing must plug into existing identity, ticketing, or reporting workflows. Limited automation forces manual operations and increases the chance of configuration drift.
How to check
Request an API or automation demo: creating a run, pulling results, and updating configurations through scripts. Confirm authentication method and whether automation actions are reflected in the audit log.
Scenario configuration flexibility
Why it matters
Scenario configuration flexibility matters because you may need to match your brand, domains, user roles, and learning objectives. If settings are locked down, admins can’t correct content or flows without a redesign.
How to check
On the demo, modify one scenario end-to-end: sender identity, landing page wording, tracking options, and success/fail criteria. Then check whether changes create a new version you can trace back in reports.
Admin permissions and RBAC
Why it matters
Admin permissions and RBAC matter because simulated phishing affects real user accounts and outcomes. Without role separation, the wrong person can alter scenarios or view sensitive result data.
How to check
Ask to define at least two roles (for example, scenario manager vs. read-only viewer) and confirm what each role can change. Verify role actions appear in the audit log and that exports respect permissions.
Red flags
- Reports show outcomes but exports don’t match
- Scenario scoping preview doesn’t match the send log
- Admin roles change scenarios or view results without limits
Fit by situation
- If you need to cover multiple lure styles and custom flows, prioritize Scenario type coverage.
- If you must run controlled tests across departments, prioritize Targeting and scope controls.
- If multiple teams manage and review outcomes, prioritize Reporting and audit log detail.
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 Testing Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Takedown Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Anti Phishing Services of 2026
- Cybersecurity Information SecurityTop 10 Best Phishing Software of 2026
- Manufacturing EngineeringTop 10 Best Process Simulate 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→