Top KnowBe4 Competitors (2026): Enterprise Security Awareness Platforms Compared

If your organization has been running KnowBe4 for years but phishing click rates have plateaued - or the program feels like a compliance checkbox - this guide compares leading enterprise security awareness training and phishing simulation platforms.

You’ll find a brief category overview, an enterprise-ready evaluation checklist, a comparison table, and vendor-by-vendor notes focused on outcomes, integrations (Microsoft/Proofpoint/Mimecast), reporting, and real-world rollout considerations.

Methodology: This guide is based on publicly available customer reviews and practitioner discussions (G2, TrustRadius, Reddit, and Info-Tech’s SoftwareReviews), plus vendor documentation. Solutions are listed in no particular order.

‍

KnowBe4 alternatives compared (2026): Top platforms at a glance

‍

Why enterprises look for KnowBe4 alternatives in 2026

Improvement stalls as programs mature

‍Many organizations see an initial drop in click rates, then a plateau. Over time, employees may learn the “shape” of simulations, high-risk cohorts may not improve with one-size-fits-all content, and year-over-year metrics can start to look repetitive. That’s why teams increasingly look for approaches that track reporting behavior, time-to-report, repeat patterns, and risk trending, not only a single failure rate.

Simulations can become less predictive without the right incentives

‍Phishing simulations still have value, but some teams find the results become harder to interpret if people optimize for “passing the test” rather than building safer habits. If a program feels punitive, it can also reduce reporting and trust. This pushes buyers toward platforms and program models that emphasize report-first habits, positive reinforcement, and coaching that supports improvement without embarrassment.‍

Completion rates rise while real behavior stays the same

‍Awareness managers often describe a familiar gap: completion rates look fine, but users treat training as a checkbox and nothing changes day to day. Alternatives are commonly evaluated on whether learning feels adult, relevant, and low-friction - with shorter lessons, smarter timing, and targeting by role and risk (instead of long, quarterly “video blocks”).

Realism and update cadence matter more than library size

‍In 2026, teams care less about the size of a content library and more about whether scenarios reflect what employees actually see and whether the content is updated in a meaningful way over time. A large catalog can become a burden if it requires constant curation, localization work, and manual mapping to emerging threat patterns.

Admin overhead becomes the hidden cost at enterprise scale

‍Switching discussions are often triggered by day-to-day operational drag - building cohorts, rotating content, managing exceptions, chasing completions, and producing reports that still require spreadsheets. Buyers increasingly prioritize automation for audience segmentation, content rotation, nudges/follow-ups, and reporting.

Leadership wants clearer evidence of risk reduction

‍CISOs are being asked to demonstrate that awareness work changes risk posture, not just audit posture. That increases demand for dashboards that explain trends in plain language, highlight where risk is concentrated, and - where feasible - tie awareness signals to operational outcomes such as reporting volume/quality, faster triage loops, and reduced repeat exposure.

The rise of AI-powered and multi-channel threats

‍Security programs must now prepare employees for emerging, sophisticated attacks that bypass traditional defenses. This includes AI-generated deepfake voice and video messages used in vishing, malicious calendar invites, and complex social engineering scams on collaboration platforms like Teams and Slack.

‍

How to choose a KnowBe4 alternative (enterprise quick checklist)

When shortlisting KnowBe4 alternatives, most enterprise teams prioritize:

• Measurable behavior change (not just clicks): reporting rate, time-to-report, repeat patterns, and trendlines over time.
• Realistic, frequently updated threats: phishing that resembles what users see today (not “template-y”), plus guidance that stays current.
• Low admin overhead at scale: automation for targeting, scheduling, follow-ups, exceptions, and recurring reporting (so you’re not living in spreadsheets).
• Exec-ready reporting: dashboards leadership can understand - what improved, where risk clusters, and what changed since last quarter.
• Program design that avoids “gotcha” culture: reinforcement that increases reporting and reduces backlash/fatigue.
• Coverage beyond basic email: training for QR phishing, MFA fatigue/push scams, vishing/social engineering, collaboration-tool lures, and impersonation patterns (even if simulations remain email-first).
• Enterprise governance: RBAC/delegated admin, multi-entity structures (regions/BUs), audit logs, and scalable localization.
• Identity + ecosystem fit: clean SSO/provisioning and practical workflows in the tools you already use (reporting button, triage flow, integrations where they matter).

‍

Top KnowBe4 alternatives for enterprises (2026)

KnowBe4 (large library)

Best for

Teams that want a broad, configurable content library and the ability to run a wide range of awareness topics and phishing simulations across different functions and regulatory needs.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Ease of use for core workflows: reviewers often describe it as intuitive for running phishing campaigns and training administration.
• Comprehensive content coverage: a large library that’s described as frequently updated, with interactive modules across multiple cybersecurity topics.
• Reporting clarity (for simulations): reporting and analytics on phishing simulation results are often called out as helpful for tracking progress and identifying weak spots.

Trade-offs to validate (common friction points)

• Content overload / navigation: some users find the volume of material overwhelming to browse and manage, and note parts can feel repetitive or too basic for more experienced audiences.
• Customization depth vs admin time: there’s feedback that more advanced tailoring (e.g., aligning simulations to specific org risks or tuning difficulty by skill level) can be limited or requires more manual effort to achieve.
• Simulation realism (especially for advanced users): some users want more variety and realism in templates/scenarios to keep long-running programs effective.
• Reporting timeliness (edge cases): a few users mention report delays affecting timely response.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your current pain is “plateaued outcomes”, make sure you can segment cohorts (role/risk) and show trendlines beyond a single failure metric.
• If your pain is admin load, test what “steady state” looks like once the initial setup is done: content selection, rotation, follow-ups, and exec reporting, without spreadsheets.

Proofpoint (integrated email security)

Best for

Teams that want security awareness tightly connected to broader email security and threat detection workflows, especially when “ecosystem fit” and integration are a major buying factor.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Realistic phishing simulations: users cite simulation testing that reflects real-world threats and tracks current tactics and trends.
• Integration with threat detection: awareness training is positioned as integrating with Proofpoint’s threat detection tooling (prevention + admin notifications).
• User-friendly training experience: reviewers mention a usable interface plus interactive modules/quizzes intended to keep learning accessible.

Trade-offs to validate (common friction points)

• Complex setup and management: initial setup can be time-consuming, particularly when connecting integrations between threat detection and SAT; customization can add configuration complexity and a learning curve.
• Support/documentation gaps (reported by some users): delays in support response times and documentation gaps are called out, especially around more complex integrations.
• Content depth and time burden: some admins prefer to customize content because they don’t find it in-depth/up-to-date enough for their needs, and some training can take 5-15 minutes for end users to complete.
• Less personalized learning paths: Proofpoint training can be “one-size-fits-all,” with simulations/training not tailored to individual users- important if your main goal is measurable behavior change.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your main pain is behavior change (plateaued outcomes, “users gaming tests”), validate whether Proofpoint supports the level of individual personalization/adaptive paths you want, since the blog flags limited tailoring.
• If your main pain is admin burden, test “steady state” explicitly: time spent on setup, integrations, ongoing configuration, and reporting because complexity and learning curve are recurring themes in the feedback.

SoSafe (localized training)

Best for

Driving longer-term behavior change with interactive, gamified training, especially where micro-learning and engagement mechanics fit internal culture.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Gamified micro-learning: SoSafe uses quizzes, micro-learning sessions, and achievement-style elements; users note this can improve participation and engagement.
• Behavior-based adaptation: the training is described as adapting to an individual’s behavior and maturity - sending more focused simulations/training to users who struggle, and more advanced threats to users who do well.
• Phishing simulation customization: some users praise the ability to customize phishing tests to better resemble threats relevant to their industry or regions.

Trade-offs to validate (common friction points)

• Complex initial setup: some users report setup and configuration can be time-consuming, especially when tailoring simulations and features to specific needs.
• Dashboard depth and customization limits: feedback includes wanting more detailed insights in the dashboard, and that customization may be more limited than some competitors for highly specific scenarios.
• Accessibility for distributed workforces: limited mobile and offline functionality is noted as a friction point for remote/field employees who need more flexible access.
• Global program needs: some global organizations want broader language support and more localized content for cultural or compliance contexts.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your current pain is moving beyond checkbox training, validate whether SoSafe’s engagement model resonates with your employee culture.
• If your current pain is admin overhead, pilot setup and steady-state operations explicitly (cohorting, content rotation, follow-ups, reporting), since setup complexity is a recurring theme.
• If you run a global program, test language coverage and localization quality early.

‍

Cofense PhishMe (detection and response)

Best for

Security teams that want phishing simulation and measurement depth, and may also be considering adjacent phishing response capabilities (e.g., reporting/triage/quarantine) as part of a broader approach.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Customization and realism options: a fairly wide range of pre-made phishing templates based on real-world threats, plus the ability to tailor themes/timing/messaging and create custom scenarios for specific industries/environments.
• Comprehensive reporting and analytics: detailed reporting on open/click/reporting rates, with both high-level summaries for managers and more granular statistics for analysis and risk assessment.
• Support experience (per user feedback): users report prompt support for technical issues and campaign customization, including onboarding and integration help to reduce the learning curve.

Trade-offs to validate (common friction points)

• UI and navigation: some users describe the dashboard as unintuitive and want clearer navigation and improved data visualization; there’s also feedback that scenario-specific metrics could be shown more transparently.
• Localization and global relevance: feedback includes requests for more region-specific templates, additional language options, and culturally relevant references to increase realism for globally distributed workforces.
• Template richness + who gets coached (author note): the author review says the phishing templates can be “quite basic” (mostly text) and flags that only end users who fail a simulation receive an educational moment—meaning others may receive less ongoing reinforcement.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your priority is leadership-ready risk trending, test whether the reporting experience is usable without heavy manual work (given dashboard/navigation feedback).
• If you run a global program, validate language coverage and localization quality early (template realism often breaks at scale when it’s too region-generic).
• If your biggest problem is behavior change plateau, explicitly test whether learning moments and reinforcement reach more than just failures.

MetaCompliance (compliance-first awareness)

Best for

Teams that are primarily using awareness to support regulatory/compliance frameworks and want security awareness training closely paired with policy management and compliance-oriented modules.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Customizable, visually engaging content: users describe interactive materials that make complex topics easier to absorb, with modules and quizzes that can be tailored to organizational needs.
• Straightforward deployment and admin controls: feedback highlights a user-friendly interface and intuitive admin controls for tracking progress and assigning content.
• Compliance emphasis and culture support: users call out value in regulated environments where meeting standards and reinforcing policy alignment is a core goal.

Trade-offs to validate (common friction points)

• Limited integrations + less comprehensive reporting: some users note fewer integration options with other systems and reporting that feels less detailed than other platforms - important if you need executive-level trend views without manual work.
• Content breadth + update cadence: some teams want broader phishing scenarios and more frequent content updates to keep pace with evolving threats.
• Simulation operations: simulations must be manually initiated and are delivered randomly, which can create repetitiveness in programs that run frequent simulations.
• Occasional technical issues: minor issues like loading delays or content access problems are mentioned as possible disruptors to engagement.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your leadership is asking for risk posture and behavior change, validate whether reporting can communicate “human risk” clearly (the author review explicitly flags this as a gap).
• If your team is optimizing for low admin overhead, test how much work is required to run simulations continuously vs manual initiation and random delivery.
• If your program is long-running, include “content freshness” in the pilot criteria (how often new scenarios appear and how much you need to curate yourself).

Hoxhunt (adaptive simulations + behavior-focused)

Best for

Teams that want a security awareness program oriented around behavior reinforcement and risk visibility, with an emphasis on running training continuously with less manual effort.

Strengths (what teams tend to like)

• Engaging user experience: users cite gamification elements (e.g., star ratings, achievements, leaderboards) and describe the experience as more engaging - boosting participation and reinforcing a positive security culture.
• Instant feedback on simulations: the platform provides immediate feedback after simulations, which users describe as helping employees correct mistakes and learn in context.
• Automated, adaptive phishing simulations: the blog describes AI-driven simulations that adjust to user skill level and are intended to reduce fatigue by avoiding scenarios that are consistently too easy or too difficult.
• Human-risk oriented dashboarding: Hoxhunt's Human Risk Dashboard offers high-level and drill-down views of behavior over time.

Trade-offs to validate (common evaluation points)

• Culture fit for gamification: some organizations are skeptical of gamification in security training; it’s worth validating tone and fit with your internal culture during a pilot.
• Limited manual control: The program is highly automated. Teams that require precise, manual control over the creation and scheduling of every individual campaign may find this approach less flexible than other platforms.

Enterprise notes (how to evaluate in a pilot)

• If your current pain is admin burden, test “steady-state” operations: how much manual work is required for targeting, rotation, and follow-ups once the pilot is live.
• If your current pain is metrics that leadership doesn’t trust, ask to see how reporting explains trends - then sanity-check whether security + HR stakeholders find it actionable.
• If your current pain is fatigue, validate whether adaptive difficulty and reinforcement actually reduce complaints while maintaining (or improving) reporting behavior.

‍

KnowBe4 vs top alternatives (quick comparisons)

KnowBe4 vs Proofpoint

Choose Proofpoint when: your awareness program is meant to sit close to your email security stack and you value ecosystem alignment (e.g., tying awareness activity into broader threat workflows).

Choose KnowBe4 when: you want a very broad training library that can flex across industries and regulatory needs.

What to validate in a pilot: setup/admin effort, how “one-size-fits-all” the learning experience feels, and whether reporting is executive-friendly without heavy customization.

KnowBe4 vs SoSafe

Choose SoSafe when: engagement is the biggest blocker and you want a behavior-focused, gamified approach (better suited to orgs in the EU region).

Choose KnowBe4 when: you need breadth (library size, topic coverage, and flexibility across many training needs).

What to validate in a pilot: culture fit for gamification, dashboard depth, and how much effort is needed to configure/operate at enterprise scale (SoSafe’s “setup complexity” and “dashboard insight” themes show up in the user feedback).

KnowBe4 vs Cofense PhishMe

Choose Cofense when: you want strong phishing simulation depth and analytics, and you’re also thinking about adjacent phishing-response workflows (Cofense’s ecosystem includes response tooling).

Choose KnowBe4 when: your core requirement is a large, flexible training library and a more “all-in-one SAT baseline.”

What to validate in a pilot: UI/report navigation and whether coaching/reinforcement reaches more than just users who fail simulations.

KnowBe4 vs MetaCompliance

Choose MetaCompliance when: your primary goal is compliance training + policy management (your post frames it as compliance-first and strong on policy/regulatory alignment).

Choose KnowBe4 when: you want broader phishing simulation variety and deeper awareness content breadth as the central value.

What to validate in a pilot: integrations and executive reporting depth (MetaCompliance feedback notes limited integrations and less comprehensive reporting; your author review notes the lack of a human-risk posture dashboard).

Hoxhunt vs KnowBe4

Choose Hoxhunt when: your main pain is: “the program runs, but outcomes plateau,” “admin overhead is high,” or “leadership wants clearer risk trending.”

Choose KnowBe4 when: your primary value is the breadth of a large training library across many topics and compliance contexts.

What to validate in a pilot: whether adaptive difficulty and reinforcement improve reporting behaviors without increasing fatigue and whether reporting/dashboards reduce manual reporting work.

Quick rule: If the main constraint is breadth of library → KnowBe4. If the main constraint is plateau + admin overhead + exec reporting clarity → Hoxhunt.

Want a deeper dive? We also published a detailed, side-by-side comparison: Hoxhunt vs KnowBe4.

‍

Which KnowBe4 alternative should you choose?

Most enterprise teams get to a better shortlist by starting with the constraint that’s actually driving the switch. Use the scenarios below to narrow to 1-2 options, then validate in a pilot.

If your program has plateaued (and leadership wants proof beyond click rate)

Choose Hoxhunt when you’re seeing one or more of these:

• click rates stopped improving year-over-year
• users treat simulations as “tests” and behavior change feels stalled
• you want to optimize for reporting rate, time-to-report, and repeat patterns
• the program takes too much manual coordination to run continuously at scale
• you need exec-friendly reporting that tells a clear trend story without spreadsheets

If your primary goal is a broad training library and maximum configurability

Shortlist KnowBe4 when you need wide topic coverage across different functions and compliance contexts, and you have the time/operating model to curate and tune a large program over time.

If awareness needs to align closely with an email security ecosystem

Shortlist Proofpoint when you want security awareness that fits tightly into broader email security workflows and suite-style operations - especially if your organization prefers consolidating around a larger ecosystem.

If employee engagement is the biggest blocker (and you want a behavior program feel)

Shortlist SoSafe or Hoxhunt when your current program feels like a checkbox and you want a more interactive, engagement-led approach - then validate culture fit and reporting depth during the pilot.

If you want phishing simulation depth and analytics

Shortlist Cofense PhishMe or Hoxhunt when you need strong simulation tooling and detailed analytics, and you want to evaluate how it fits alongside phishing reporting/triage processes.

If compliance training and policy workflows are the main requirement

Shortlist MetaCompliance when your awareness program is primarily compliance-driven and you want strong policy/training alignment, then validate reporting depth and integrations against your enterprise requirements.

‍

Pilot checklist for evaluating KnowBe4 alternatives (enterprise)

Use this as a “must-pass” checklist before committing to a platform switch:

• Run a real pilot cohort mix: include at least two cohorts (general users + higher-risk/privileged roles) so results aren’t skewed by one population.
• Measure behavior, not activity: track reporting rate, time-to-report, and repeat patterns over multiple weeks (not just click rate or completion).
• Validate steady-state admin effort: test the weekly work: cohorting/targeting, scheduling, follow-ups, exceptions, and recurring reporting, without exports/spreadsheets.
• Test realism + fatigue at the same time: review scenario quality with stakeholders and monitor user feedback/complaints while the cadence is running.
• Do an executive readout before you buy: show leadership the dashboards and trend story and confirm they answer: “Are we improving? Where is risk concentrated? What changed?”
• Stress-test the “boring migration” details: confirm SSO + provisioning, group logic, reporting workflow, governance/delegated admin, localization needs, and what data/baselines you can (and can’t) carry over.

‍

About Hoxhunt (enterprise fit)

At Hoxhunt, we help enterprises run security awareness and phishing training as a continuous, low-friction program - with an emphasis on behavior change. Teams typically evaluate us when outcomes have plateaued, when the program takes too much manual effort to operate at scale, or when leadership wants clearer proof of progress than a single click-rate metric.

What enterprises typically choose us for

Enterprises typically choose Hoxhunt when they want an awareness program that runs continuously with less manual coordination, and when success is defined as improved reporting behavior and risk trending over time. If your current program is mature and results have plateaued, we’re usually evaluated for our adaptive reinforcement approach and executive-friendly visibility into behavior change.

What to validate if you’re shortlisting us

• Adaptive reinforcement: how we adjust training and simulation difficulty based on user behavior over time, and whether that improves engagement without increasing fatigue.
• Metrics leadership will actually use: whether our reporting helps you communicate trends like reporting rate, time-to-report, and repeat patterns, without living in exports.
• Enterprise operations and governance: how automated the steady-state work is (targeting, rotations, follow-ups, exceptions), plus whether our admin model fits your governance needs (delegated admin/RBAC, audit trails, localization).

When Hoxhunt is typically a strong fit (quick check)

We’re usually a good fit if you want to:

• Run awareness continuously with less manual work
• Improve reporting behaviors and risk trending beyond click rates, and
• Tune training by cohort instead of sending the same content to everyone.

A simple enterprise pilot approach

Pilot with two cohorts (general users + higher-risk/privileged roles) for several weeks. Track reporting behavior trends and repeat patterns, alongside weekly admin time and employee sentiment.

Below you can see how Hoxhunt drives engagement through targeted learning experiences - automate training with workflows and reminders, and precisely tailor learning experiences to each employee.

‍

FAQ: Key questions teams ask when shortlisting KnowBe4 alternatives

Why aren’t our phishing click rates improving anymore?

Plateaus are common in mature programs. Users learn patterns, low-risk users “graduate,” and the remaining risk concentrates in specific cohorts. When comparing alternatives, prioritize platforms (and program designs) that improve reporting rate, time-to-report, and repeat patterns - not just click reduction.

Are phishing simulations still effective, or are users just gaming them?

They’re effective when the program rewards the right behavior. If people focus on “passing,” results become less predictive. Look for approaches that emphasize realism and variation, reinforce report-first habits, and avoid punitive-feeling coaching, so employees report suspicious messages even when unsure.

How do we prove awareness is reducing real risk (not just satisfying audits)?

Shift from activity metrics (completion, click %) to outcome signals leadership understands:

• Reporting rate + time-to-report (detection signal)
• Repeat behavior trends (where risk persists)

How do we stop training from feeling like a checkbox (or childish)?

In practice, shorter reinforcement wins: microlearning, better timing, and targeted content by role/risk. In evaluation, review tone with HR/comms and test employee sentiment in a pilot.

Which vendors keep content realistic and meaningfully updated?

Don’t evaluate by “library size.” Ask for current samples (shared-doc lures, HR/benefits, invoice/payment, SaaS login) and specifics on update cadence: what changes, how often, and how updates roll into your program without you rebuilding campaigns.

What should we pilot before committing at enterprise scale?

Pilot the “boring” realities, not just the demo:

• two cohorts (general + higher-risk/privileged)
• behavior metrics over weeks (reporting rate, time-to-report, repeat patterns)
• steady-state admin time (automation vs spreadsheets)
• exec dashboard readout
• SSO/provisioning + governance + reporting workflow validation

_Sources

^{Hoxhunt Reviews and Comparisons - G2; Software Advice; TrustRadius; Gartner
KnowBe4 Security Awareness Reviews and Comparisons – Gartner; Corporate Compliance Insights
Proofpoint Email Protection & Essentials Reviews – TrustRadius; SoftwareReviews; Expert InsightsSoSafe Feedback and Comparisons – Gartner; FeaturedCustomers; SoftwareReviews
Cofense PhishMe Reviews – Gartner; TrustRadius; Software Advice
MetaCompliance Security Awareness Training Feedback – G2; TrustRadius; Gartner Comparison with KnowBe4}‍