Is Your Social Engineering Training Actually Working?

85% of organizations now experience some degree of phishing and social engineering attacks.

Social engineering accounts for 98% of all cyber-attacks... and human error accounts for the vast majority of successful breaches.

One of the only ways to effectively reduce human cyber risk is through effective training. Most companies have a social engineering training program. Fewer have one that actually changes behavior.

Security teams are under pressure to “tick the box” for compliance. Meanwhile, attackers are evolving at speed, refining psychological manipulation techniques that bypass technical defenses and exploit human vulnerabilities.

And yet… most awareness programs still look like they did a decade ago: generic videos, static templates, simulated phishing emails that train users to spot obvious red flags - while ignoring how real attacks actually unfold.

If you’re only measuring click rates, you’re not measuring risk. You’re measuring test performance.

The real goal isn’t awareness. It’s behavior. Specifically: do people pause before acting? Do they report suspicious activity, even when it’s subtle? Do they adapt when attackers adapt?

Below we'll break down what “effective” actually looks like when it comes to social engineering awareness training. We’ll unpack the metrics that matter, the training frequencies that work, and the signals that a culture is shifting from reactive to resilient.

‍

How do you know if your social engineering training is effective?

The default answer we hear when talking to security leaders is usually some version of: “Well, our click rate’s down, so we’re doing fine.”

But when you scratch the surface, most teams know that’s not the full picture. In fact, it’s often a false one.

Click rate is a convenience metric. It tells you who clicked on a simulated phishing email, but not who would spot a real threat. Worse, it can be skewed by factors that have nothing to do with awareness: poorly crafted templates, overly obvious cues, or (in some cases) bugs and miscounts from email gateway conflicts.

And even when the metric is accurate, it’s one-dimensional. Fail rate goes down… but you don’t actually know if people are thinking more.

Click/fail rates doen't tell you if someone would actually spot a sophisticated social engineering attack in the wild - or, more importantly, report it. That’s the real benchmark: how people behave in the moments that matter.

So what should you be measuring?

1. Real threat reporting. One of the most telling shifts we see is from “click vs. don’t click” to “ignore vs. report.” When employees start flagging real threats - not just simulated phishing attacks - that’s when training starts to move the needle. We’ve heard security teams say they’d take a higher click rate if it meant a higher volume of real threat reports, because that’s what stops breaches in practice.

2. Speed of response. Time-to-report is often more useful than raw reporting volume. Can people detect a social engineering attempt in minutes... or does it sit for hours, waiting to be acted on? In high-performing programs, we’ve seen median report times drop below five minutes, which buys critical time for security ops to triage and contain.

3. Adaptive learning signals. If every simulation looks the same, you’re not measuring skill, you’re measuring recognition. Programs that change behavior adjust dynamically. If someone fails a LinkedIn lure, their next simulation might double down on that vector. If they quickly spot a QR-based phish, they get something harder. This “challenge-match” dynamic keeps the experience just hard enough to drive learning without tipping into fatigue.

This isn’t theory - it’s what practitioners are asking for. Admins tell us their current setup feels like a “set it and forget it” checklist. Content gets refreshed once a year, but behavior doesn’t evolve.

So what does that actually look like on the ground? Here’s an interactive walk-through of a Hoxhunt simulation - exactly what your employees would see when they’re targeted with a realistic, adaptive phishing attempt.

‍

How often should we run social engineering training?

The most common answer we hear?

“Once a month. We send phishing emails every month.”

Monthly phishing simulations are better than nothing. But the idea that frequency alone drives effectiveness? That’s a trap. We hear a similar story over and over... “We’re doing monthly phish tests, and people are still falling for the same tricks. We’ve plateaued.”

The better model is adaptive frequency. Train more when users show risk. Ease off when they’re performing well. Keep the pressure on the attackers - not the employees.

We’ve seen this work in practice:

• A new hire who clicks three phishes in their first month gets easier simulations to build up their skills and confidence.
• Experienced employees get simulations that are more challenging so they're being tested at the edge of their ability.
• And critically, the simulations evolve in form (QR, calendar invite, Slack-style messages) so even “trained” users stay sharp.

This is also how you balance two opposing forces: challenge vs. fatigue.

Too little training, and people go dull. Too much, and you build up fatigue. But if you tune simulations based on behavior, you can stretch engagement over time without burning people out. One security lead told us, “We were worried about overloading people, but what actually happened is they started looking forward to the next challenge.”

‍

Why does social engineering training often fail at scale?

You’d expect larger orgs - with dedicated budgets and established tooling - to run tighter, more mature security awareness programs. But we keep hearing a different story.

When social engineering training scales, things don’t necessarily get sharper.

The stack starts to work against itself

Several teams told us that their phishing data was outright broken. Click rates were inflated and threat reports misrouted because of Microsoft Defender, email gateway conflicts... or just too many reporting buttons.

Ineffective, static formats

As one practitioner put it, “After a year, users know what to expect. They know the format. They know what’s a test.” That’s not resilience... that’s habituation. And when a real attacker switches vectors, that conditioning could leave your organization vulnerable. People respond better to new formats, role-specific content, or even just a change in tone. If the only variable in your program is “which template this month,” you’re not keeping up with how social engineering attempts evolve.

Engagement collapses without relevance

Large orgs are diverse in roles, risk profiles, even workplace norms. So a one-size-fits-all phishing simulation might hit flat. Or worse, feel patronizing. Training built for scale too often forgets about fit. If you get the currency or local delivery service wrong, people disengage instantly. Not because they don’t care but because they know it’s fake.

Onboarding delays create blind spots

We often hear about users going weeks - sometimes months - without being enrolled in phishing simulations or training. By the time they’re onboarded, they’ve already settled into risky habits.

Compliance checklists masquerade as progress

In many programs, the definition of success is “course completed.” But that tells you nothing about whether someone knows how to respond to a social engineering attack. This kind of training is designed for compliance, not for people. It tells you the right answer, but never why it matters or how to act on it. And that’s the real problem with scaling the traditional model. It assumes people are static, too.

Below you can see exactly how content allows you to target users by location, role and more.

‍

What does effective personalization look like in training?

Everyone says they do personalized training. But when you dig into it, most programs just swap out the name on the phishing email.

What actually moves the needle is much deeper: it’s about aligning content with user context - their role, risk exposure, behavior patterns, even regional norms. Because no two employees face the same cyber threats.

We’ve seen over and over that role-based training - especially when it reflects real threat vectors - massively improves both threat recognition and reporting. A training session on USB devices isn’t useful for someone who works fully remote. But for a manufacturing site supervisor it could be a high-risk vector.

Here’s what personalization looks like when it works:

• Role-specific simulations. HR teams getting phishing emails about payroll or policy changes. Finance teams getting fake invoice requests and business email compromise lures. IT teams tested on spoofed admin credentials or unauthorized access attempts.
• Localized context. Phishing about a US postal service scam doesn’t land in other regions. We’ve had entire user groups mentally check out because the scam used the wrong currency or a service that doesn’t exist in their country.
• Adaptive difficulty. Effective cybersecurity training uses adaptive learning - challenging skilled employees with new social engineering techniques while supporting others with more foundational scenarios. Our data shows that when difficulty adapts, reporting increases and fatigue drop.
• Real-life attack scenarios. Narratives stick. People remember simulations based on true stories - like attackers scattering USB drives in parking lots or compromising login credentials through spoofed MFA prompts. Several admins told us they’ve seen behavior change kick in only after users recognized a pattern from a training module that mirrored a real attack vector.
• Empathetic tone. We’re not training people to become penetration testers. We’re helping them recognize when they’re being manipulated by skilled threat actors. So it matters that training doesn’t feel punitive. Think of it as a  “respect-relatability-relevance” triangle. If the training respects their intelligence, reflects their role, and relates to real attack possibilities, they engage.

Employees know when they’re being handed a basic phishing template. You want to build a security-conscious culture? That starts with training that feels like it was built for them - not for the auditors.

The walk-through below shows how Hoxhunt allows you to adapt your social engineering training to each user - from role-specific pretexts to localized content and escalating difficulty. It’s how we drive global engagement without defaulting to one-size-fits-all.

‍

What’s the right balance between challenge and burnout?

There’s a fine line between “annoyed but learning” and “checked out.” And a lot of security awareness training crosses it.

We hear this again and again: people start out engaged, but eventually it becomes background noise. The training’s predictable, the simulated attacks feel recycled, and the reward structure flattens. One security leader described it as “death by monthly phish.”

The key to sustained engagement is adaptive challenge. That means creating just enough friction to activate learning, without tipping people into apathy or resentment. It’s not about making training harder for the sake of it. It’s about making it relevant, dynamic, and unpredictable - so users don’t fall into auto-pilot.

We want users to build that muscle memory. But if it always feels like a quiz, they stop using their brain.

Here’s how we balance engagement and fatigue at Hoxhunt...

Individualized difficulty progression

People should be challenged according to their actual behavior. If someone consistently spots malicious links or phishing attempts, it’s time to raise the stakes. If someone struggles, pull back the intensity and reinforce the basics.

Short bursts, high relevance

Hour-long training videos and compliance modules are the fastest path to burnout. Instead, we use a continuous training approach that delivers 60-second interactive training moments - embedded directly in the flow of work - keeps cognitive load low and retention high. This isn’t theoretical: we’ve seen user behavior change dramatically with micro-training and simulated attacks tied to real threats.

New formats keep curiosity alive

One approach we’ve seen resonate: game-style training where users explore simulated attack scenarios and make real-time choices. We've even seen high engagement from choose-your-own-adventure training classes. These fresh approaches make training embedded, unexpected, and even fun.

Gamified motivation

Gamified cybersecurity training isn't just a gimmick in Hoxhunt. Leaderboards, badges, and friendly competition tap into intrinsic motivation. If users are refreshing the leaderboard, you know they’re paying attention.

See how Hoxhunt’s gamified training keeps users engaged over time - adapting challenge levels, rewarding secure behavior, and turning phishing simulations into a game people actually want to play.

‍

How can I prove ROI on social engineering training?

Proving ROI on security awareness training has always been tricky. Leadership wants a clean answer: are we actually safer, or just ticking boxes?

The real return on investment in social engineering awareness training shows up in behavior - how fast users report, how confidently they act in the moment, and whether they respond correctly to real cyber threats.

What should you measure?

1. Real threat reporting rate

This is the north star metric. Not just whether users spot simulated phishing tests but whether they recognize and report real threats.

Our data shows that after 12 months, over 60% of users report at least one real threat, not just simulated attacks. This is evidence that social engineering training is changing behavior where it counts most: in the wild.

A standard security awareness training tool with a 20% phishing failure rate translates to 466 successful phishing incidents per year per 1,000 employees. At enterprise scale (10,000 users), that’s over 4,600 security threats annually. With Hoxhunt, that failure rate drops to 3.2% after a year - cutting total phishing incidents per 1,000-person org down to just 75. That’s an 86% reduction in successful attacks.

2. Time to report

Time equals exposure. The faster someone recognizes a phishing attempt and reports it, the faster you can respond. Security teams using Hoxhunt's adaptive, embedded training models have reduced average time-to-report to under 5 minutes -  cutting off the attack window before a threat actor can escalate privileges or spread laterally.

3. Behavior over time

Tracking how users improve matters more than a snapshot of who failed what. A high failure rate on a tough spear phishing sim might be a sign the difficulty curve is working. What matters is that those same users perform better on the next round and show improvement across types of attacks, not just in one format.

5. Security culture signals

ROI also shows up in hard-to-quantify cultural behaviors:

• Employees asking before plugging in unknown USB devices.
• Teams comparing phishing leaderboard scores on Slack.
• New joiners asking, “Wait, that was the whole onboarding? That was actually useful.”

Those signals show up when training respects people’s intelligence and time... and when users feel safe admitting when they mess up. That safety is the foundation of a real security culture, not just a security program.

‍

Hoxhunt vs. KnowBe4: What's the real difference?

If you’re comparing platforms, it’s easy to assume both Hoxhunt and KnowBe4 check the same boxes: phishing simulations, compliance coverage, awareness training videos. But if you talk to the people running these programs day to day, the differences are stark.

Here’s what they’re telling us...

Behavior change vs. compliance coverage

KnowBe4: It checks the compliance box. You assign a course, track completions, and get a clean report for the audit file. But as multiple security leads tell us, “It’s a one-size-fits-all experience. Nobody remembers it after they click through.”

Hoxhunt: Is purpose-built for behavior change. Simulated phishing attacks arrive organically in users’ inboxes, personalized to their role, risk level, and recent performance. The system adapts based on whether users click, report, or ignore. So instead of “Have they done the training?” the question becomes: “Are they spotting real threats?”

Engagement: gamified and engagement

KnowBe4: One of the most common complaints is that people tune it out. The novelty wears off, the templates get predictable, and admins end up fielding gripes like “Why am I still getting these?” or “Didn’t I just do this last quarter?”.

Hoxhunt: Simulations arrive like real phishing emails - at different times, with varying levels of difficulty, using real attack techniques. Users are rewarded for accurate reporting, not punished for clicking. They earn points, track streaks, and climb leaderboards.

Personalization at scale

KnowBe4: Offers a big library. But that library still has to be manually curated. Admins often spend hours building out campaigns and selecting templates which might still hit everyone with the same generic training video.

Hoxhunt: Personalization is automatic. The platform adjusts difficulty in real time. The system trains users the way a good coach would: reinforcing fundamentals when needed, raising difficulty as skills improve.

Admin effort: heavy lift vs. hands-off

KnowBe4: Gives you knobs and dials, but it expects you to run the machine. Security teams often feel stuck in a loop of scheduling campaigns, managing opt-outs, and chasing completions - all while trying to make sense of the results.

Hoxhunt: Runs itself. Simulations are sent automatically, difficulty is tuned continuously, and engagement is tracked across cohorts. Admins can focus on strategy instead of click rate spreadsheets. As one CISO put it, “It’s the difference between operating the treadmill and just walking on it.”

Don't take our word for it. You can read what real users say about Hoxhunt and KnowBe4 here.

‍

Why Hoxhunt is built for real-world social engineering threats

Most security awareness programs train users to pass, not to protect.

This is where Hoxhunt is different. We provide personalized phishing training, automated security awareness training and advanced behavior change - all in one human risk management platform. 

Social engineering attacks start with targeting employees... and so should the solution. With Hoxhunt, you’ll achieve real risk reduction with measurable security behavior change that keeps pace with an ever-evolving threat landscape.

• 20x lower failure rates
• 90%+ engagement rates
• 75%+ detect rates

From passive awareness to active defense

Hoxhunt’s adaptive training model doesn’t just throw content at your employees. It delivers real-time, in-context simulated attacks that blend into the flow of work - then gives immediate feedback when someone reports (or clicks). That loop is how instincts get built.

Built for how humans actually learn

Traditional training leans on fear. It spikes short-term vigilance - then burns people out. We don’t do that. Hoxhunt uses positive reinforcement, adaptive difficulty, and just-in-time delivery to keep users engaged without overwhelming them. This is why engagement doesn’t drop off after the first quarter. It builds. Users get better, faster, and more confident - especially when they see the results reflected in leaderboards.

Culture shifts, one simulation at a time

What does good culture look like? It’s someone reporting a weird login before IT sees it. It’s employees comparing scores at the office. We’ve seen entire departments go from passive compliance to proactive vigilance because they started to see security as part of their job, not just an interruption to it.

‍

Social engineering training FAQ

How do I know if my social engineering training is actually working

If your only metrics are click rates and course completions, you don’t. The better signal is real threat reporting - when users recognize and escalate live phishing or social engineering attempts, not just simulations. That shift in user behavior, especially under pressure, is the real ROI

How often should we run phishing simulations?

Not on a fixed calendar - on a behavioral curve. Monthly is common, but too static. High performers get fewer but harder phish; lower performers get more frequent reps. Adaptive cadence balances engagement with challenge and reduces alert fatigue over time.

Is Hoxhunt better than KnowBe4 for phishing training?

It depends what you want. KnowBe4 is great for compliance tracking. Hoxhunt is built for behavior change - with adaptive, personalized simulations, game-style feedback, and much higher real-world threat reporting rates. If your goal is building instincts, not just logging completions, Hoxhunt leads.

How do I keep employees engaged in social engineering training over time?

Personalization, variety, and reward. Adaptive difficulty keeps it challenging. Role-based content keeps it relevant. And gamification - like leaderboards or point streaks - keeps it sticky. Users tune out static training. They lean into systems that evolve with them.

Is it worth paying more for adaptive or gamified training?

Yes - if your goal is lasting behavior change. Static training drives short-term compliance. Adaptive and gamified systems keep people learning longer, reporting faster, and retaining more which translates directly to reduced incidents and higher ROI over time.

Are there tools that reduce admin effort and still get results?

Hoxhunt is built for exactly this. Simulations run automatically, difficulty adjusts on its own, and reporting is focused on outcomes, not checkbox metrics. Most admins we talk to say it’s the first awareness tool they don’t dread managing.

What does a successful first year of training look like?

You’ll see failure rates drop fast - usually to under 5% - and real threat reporting climb steadily. But the deeper signs are cultural: employees start flagging suspicious emails unprompted, teams talk about phishing outside training, and security becomes part of the day-to-day. That’s when you know it’s working.