Commissioned Research
Top 10 Best Simulated Phishing Services of 2026

GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE

Cybersecurity Information Security

Top 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.

17 min readUpdated Editorially scoped research
How we ranked these tools
01Editorial Scope

Vendors set the topic, but our editors set the inclusion criteria and the evaluation framework before research starts.

02Source Research

Agents extract product evidence with provenance, then collect written reviews and transcribe video reviews and podcasts.

Read our full methodology →

Framework: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%

Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy

Simulated phishing services run controlled email and message campaigns that measure how users respond to lure themes, impersonation attempts, and report flows. Security teams use this comparison to weigh key tradeoffs in delivery method, reporting and audit log depth, integration and automation paths, and the configuration options for campaign realism and operational throughput.

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.

Editor pick
1

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.

2

Optiv

Editor pick

Managed 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.

3

Coalfire

Editor pick

Credential-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

1
KrollBest overall
enterprise_vendor
9.2/10
Overall
2
enterprise_vendor
8.8/10
Overall
3
specialist
8.6/10
Overall
4
8.4/10
Overall
5
enterprise_vendor
8.0/10
Overall
6
specialist
7.8/10
Overall
7
enterprise_vendor
7.5/10
Overall
8
specialist
7.2/10
Overall
9
6.9/10
Overall
10
specialist
6.7/10
Overall
#1

Kroll

enterprise_vendor

Runs social engineering and phishing assessments as part of its cybersecurity consulting services.

9.2/10
Overall
Features9.2/10
Ease of Use9.2/10
Value9.2/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –Integration and execution success depends on coordinated internal stakeholders
  • –Less suited to teams needing rapid self-serve template iteration
Use scenarios
  • 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.

#2

Optiv

enterprise_vendor

Delivers social engineering assessments and security awareness services for enterprise clients.

8.8/10
Overall
Features8.8/10
Ease of Use8.9/10
Value8.7/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –Tighter internal control over every setting can be harder during managed delivery
  • –Full integration depth depends on how identity and reporting workflows are structured
Use scenarios
  • 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.

#3

Coalfire

specialist

Delivers social engineering penetration tests with phishing and physical security components.

8.6/10
Overall
Features8.6/10
Ease of Use8.6/10
Value8.6/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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
Use scenarios
  • 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.

#4

GuidePoint Security

specialist

Provides social engineering testing that measures employee exposure to phishing and impersonation.

8.4/10
Overall
Features8.4/10
Ease of Use8.3/10
Value8.5/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#5

NCC Group

enterprise_vendor

Provides social engineering assessments covering phishing, impersonation, and employee response.

8.0/10
Overall
Features8.0/10
Ease of Use8.0/10
Value8.0/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#6

Bishop Fox

specialist

Performs social engineering engagements that test phishing susceptibility and employee reporting behavior.

7.8/10
Overall
Features7.8/10
Ease of Use7.8/10
Value7.8/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#7

VikingCloud

enterprise_vendor

Provides social engineering assessments and security awareness services for commercial organizations.

7.5/10
Overall
Features7.5/10
Ease of Use7.6/10
Value7.4/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#8

BreachLock

specialist

Delivers managed penetration testing and social engineering assessments, including phishing exercises.

7.2/10
Overall
Features7.2/10
Ease of Use7.3/10
Value7.1/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#9

Social-Engineer, LLC

specialist

Conducts phishing, vishing, smishing, and broader social engineering assessments.

6.9/10
Overall
Features6.9/10
Ease of Use6.9/10
Value6.9/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

#10

TrustedSec

specialist

Provides social engineering assessments that include phishing campaigns and employee testing.

6.7/10
Overall
Features6.7/10
Ease of Use6.7/10
Value6.7/10
Standout feature

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.

Pros
  • +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
Cons
  • –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.

Our Top Pick
Kroll

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?
Bishop Fox designs phishing simulation campaigns around adversary behavior patterns and can adjust message content to match realistic attacker flows. Social-Engineer, LLC runs scripted deception journeys that include landing-page capture paths for credential-harvesting style outcomes.
Which provider pairs credential-capture simulation with landing-page measurement workflows?
BreachLock supports credential-harvesting simulations that include landing capture and click-through tracking in the same campaign workflow. Social-Engineer, LLC also centers on landing-page credential capture and follows user interactions through the response reporting loop.
What operational control does Kroll provide when security teams need consistent execution across business units?
Kroll runs managed delivery with governance-oriented campaign operations that keep scenario execution consistent across units. NCC Group also supports services-led scoping, but its integration depth depends more on how simulation reporting is wired into downstream security operations during engagement.
How do GuidePoint Security and VikingCloud handle baseline versus follow-up measurement in recurring programs?
GuidePoint Security uses controlled rollout patterns and behavior-based reporting built for follow-up remediation and awareness operations. VikingCloud ties outcomes to remediation messaging for end users and repeats campaign structures for baseline versus follow-up measurement cycles.
Where does admin governance differ between BreachLock and TrustedSec for role separation and audit trails?
BreachLock emphasizes role-based access controls and audit trails that track campaign actions and user outcomes. TrustedSec focuses on operational guidance plus structured campaigns, while still supporting response tracking and follow-through actions tied to user behavior.
How do Bishop Fox and NCC Group differ in delivery model and onboarding effort?
Bishop Fox typically follows a project-delivery shape where campaign design work drives integration expectations. NCC Group uses a services-first scoping approach that defines targeting rules and stakeholder-ready reporting outputs, so onboarding aligns around engagement-defined workflow rather than self-service configuration.
Which provider is a stronger fit when simulations must align with identity or directory workflows?
TrustedSec supports integration points that matter to security operations, including identity and directory alignment for downstream reporting. Optiv fits teams that want help integrating with identity workflows, and it coordinates governance around ongoing campaigns rather than only scheduling templates.
What breaks if a simulation workflow cannot capture safe credential outcomes reliably?
Coalfire ties credential-harvesting simulation delivery to readiness reporting, so incomplete capture undermines the governed reporting loop. Social-Engineer, LLC also depends on scripted landing-page flows, so missing or interrupted capture paths can distort user-risk behavior patterns used for follow-up triggers.
When security teams need attachment-based and link-based coverage under the same program, which providers support that mix?
Optiv supports both attachment-based and link-based phishing simulations with click and report tracking for follow-on training decisions. VikingCloud supports realistic phishing email template creation for both link and attachment styles and then maps outcomes to remediation messaging after user reporting or clicks.

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.
Commissioned Research

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 →

Keep exploring

FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS

Not on this list? Let’s fix that.

Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.

Apply for a Listing

WHAT THIS INCLUDES

  • Where buyers compare

    Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.

  • Editorial write-up

    We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.

  • On-page brand presence

    You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.

  • Kept up to date

    We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.