Adaptive Security

Name: Adaptive Security
Brand: Adaptive Security

AI NativeLeader

Next-gen security training & AI attack simulations. Protection from deepfakes, vishing, smishing, and AI email attacks.

Est 2024|Valuation $606M|Raised $146.5M|22 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 17K|Web traffic 84K|FTEs 239|HQ New York, NY

MarketsSecurity Awareness & Training

Published Oct 24, 2026

01Common complaints

1) Organizations that require transparent published pricing and a self-serve procurement path - Adaptive’s quote-only pricing model may increase procurement effort and complicate budgeting for price-sensitive buyers. 2) Organizations whose primary need is basic compliance-only training - For simple annual compliance training with minimal customization, legacy SAT packages or Microsoft-native options may be more cost-effective. 3) Organizations that require advanced reporting exports and ready-made audit reporting immediately - Recurring feedback about reporting limitations suggests teams with heavy audit, regulator, or board reporting needs should validate exports in a pilot. 4) Highly distributed global organizations with strict regional constraints - Validate SMS/voice simulation support, language coverage, and data residency before purchase if the organization operates across many jurisdictions. 5) Organizations or cultures sensitive to highly realistic simulations - Voice deepfake and executive-impersonation simulations can affect employee trust if not carefully coordinated with HR and legal; consider less invasive simulations or vendors emphasizing gamified approaches. Based on review-derived items and vendor materials: - Reporting flexibility limits (commonly mentioned weakness) - Simulation template library depth may be smaller than legacy vendors - Campaign editing limitations (some reviewers report inability to edit ongoing campaigns without terminating them) - International/jurisdiction constraints noted in at least one review - Frequent product updates may require administrators to adjust operational procedures

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations requiring published, self-serve pricing and minimal sales involvement
Teams needing highly customizable reporting and exports immediately
Organizations with extensive international requirements (languages, jurisdictions, data residency) that cannot accept potential limitations

Roadmap visibility

No public, dated product roadmap was found in the reviewed sources.

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

Explicit churn narratives were not prominent in the reviewed materials. Based on negative feedback themes, plausible churn drivers include:

Reporting/export rigidity
International deployment limitations
Relative platform maturity gaps (template library depth, campaign editing constraints)

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by customer feedback

Realistic simulations as perceived by multiple reviewers (multi-channel scenarios and deepfake-style content)
Rapid product iteration and responsive support reported by reviewers
Customization of training content to align with organizational context

Unique selling points primarily vendor-claimed (need validation)

Vendor statistics and large-percentage claims about threat growth (for example, specific percentage increases tied to public models) should be validated for methodology and sampling
Any reported high NPS or other aggregated satisfaction metrics should be validated for sample size and collection method

Where competitors may still have advantages

KnowBe4: broader template library and published pricing
Hoxhunt/SoSafe: alternative engagement models and regional/localization strategies that may be preferable in some markets

Why customers chose Adaptive over alternatives

Reviewers cite switching because of:

More current and AI-relevant content compared with some older SAT libraries
Customizability of training modules to match business context
Multi-channel simulation capability (voice/SMS-style threats)

03Field reports

Review platform availability snapshot

Presence on G2, Capterra, and Trustpilot with multiple reviewer entries and generally positive sentiment on major platforms

What customers praise (with direct quotes)

From G2 (examples): - Speed of iteration and support: - “Adaptive is one of the very few cybersecurity organizations that evolve as quickly as bad actors do.” (Director of IT, Enterprise) - Ease of setup and Microsoft 365 integration: - “Initial set up was extremely easy, and connected directly to our M365 environment.” - Realism of simulations: - Reviewers cite a "jarring and realistic portrayal" of attacks and note the product's value for deepfake preparedness. From Trustpilot (examples): - Product relevance and adoption: - “Adaptive is the future of simulated phishing and security awareness training.” - “We were running programs as soon as we went live.”

Common criticisms and complaints (with direct quotes)

Recurring concerns identified in review excerpts include: - Reporting flexibility: - “One place where the platform could step up is its reporting… the tool doesn’t offer much flexibility in how that data is presented.” - Integration complexity in specific cases: - “I found the Drata integration process to be quite technical…” - Template library maturity and operational friction: - A reviewer noted a "limited library of phishing simulation templates" and that "you can’t edit ongoing campaigns without terminating them first." - International coverage limitations: - “Ability to work internationally from all jurisdictions is limited…”

Specific outcomes customers achieved

Reviews report improved awareness and administrative workflow improvements; however, quantified metrics (for example, click-rate reduction or incident reduction) were not consistently provided in the available snippets.

Availability of case studies

Adaptive’s site includes case study references and customer logos, but full case study details and independently verifiable ROI numbers were not consistently accessible in the reviewed extracts.

Example outcomes and methodology gaps

- The vendor’s communications reference rapid adoption and customer logos. - Hard ROI metrics (for example, reduced phishing click rates or incident reductions) were not presented with detailed methodology in the materials reviewed. Critical evaluation: Treat reported outcomes as vendor-published and plausible but not independently verified. Buyers should request: - Before-and-after phishing failure rates (by channel) - Time-to-triage metrics for user-reported phishing - Evidence that observed improvements persist beyond the initial rollout period

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit appears to be:

Mid-market (50–1,000 employees) to enterprise (1,000+ employees)
Particularly where security teams aim to address AI-enabled fraud risks with simulations

Industries where adoption seems strongest

Based on vendor references and review context:

Financial services
Healthcare systems
Technology / software companies
Professional sports / entertainment brands

Roles and personas

Decision makers: CISO, Head of Security/GRC, VP Security, IT Director
Admin users: security awareness program managers, IAM/security engineers responsible for integrations
End users: all employees, with focused scenarios for executives and other high-risk roles

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Organizations seeking simulations beyond standard email phishing (including voice and SMS scenarios)
Organizations with leadership support for realistic exercises
Organizations that value vendor responsiveness and frequent product updates

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Adaptive Security is a security awareness training (SAT) and phishing simulation platform focused on AI-related social engineering threats (for example, deepfakes, vishing, smishing, executive impersonation, and OSINT-driven spearphishing). It combines: - Interactive security training modules (micro-learning oriented) - Multi-channel phishing simulations (email, SMS, voice; vendor also markets deepfake scenarios) - A phishing-reporting workflow with AI-assisted triage (referred to by the vendor as “Phish Triage”) - OSINT risk analytics / digital footprint visibility intended to model potential attacker approaches Vendor materials emphasize preparing employees for simulations that emulate targeted, AI-generated attacks rather than template-based phishing tests.

Target market and market positioning

Adaptive targets: - Mid-market to enterprise organizations seeking higher realism and customization than some legacy SAT platforms - Security/GRC teams that require combined training, simulation, and reporting capabilities - Industries with elevated fraud exposure or compliance requirements (financial services, healthcare, technology), as well as certain brand-sensitive organizations Review summaries indicate usage across mid-market and enterprise segments and frequent references to integration with Microsoft 365, phishing reporting buttons, and vendor replacements for other SAT tools.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Adaptive Security including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Oct 24, 2026

01Common complaints

Organizations that require transparent published pricing and a self-serve procurement path

Adaptive’s quote-only pricing model may increase procurement effort and complicate budgeting for price-sensitive buyers.

Organizations whose primary need is basic compliance-only training

For simple annual compliance training with minimal customization, legacy SAT packages or Microsoft-native options may be more cost-effective.

Organizations that require advanced reporting exports and ready-made audit reporting immediately

Recurring feedback about reporting limitations suggests teams with heavy audit, regulator, or board reporting needs should validate exports in a pilot.

Highly distributed global organizations with strict regional constraints

Validate SMS/voice simulation support, language coverage, and data residency before purchase if the organization operates across many jurisdictions.

Organizations or cultures sensitive to highly realistic simulations

Voice deepfake and executive-impersonation simulations can affect employee trust if not carefully coordinated with HR and legal; consider less invasive simulations or vendors emphasizing gamified approaches.

Based on review-derived items and vendor materials:

Reporting flexibility limits (commonly mentioned weakness)
Simulation template library depth may be smaller than legacy vendors
Campaign editing limitations (some reviewers report inability to edit ongoing campaigns without terminating them)
International/jurisdiction constraints noted in at least one review
Frequent product updates may require administrators to adjust operational procedures

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations requiring published, self-serve pricing and minimal sales involvement
Teams needing highly customizable reporting and exports immediately
Organizations with extensive international requirements (languages, jurisdictions, data residency) that cannot accept potential limitations

Roadmap visibility

No public, dated product roadmap was found in the reviewed sources.

Why some customers left for competitors (churn reasons)

Explicit churn narratives were not prominent in the reviewed materials. Based on negative feedback themes, plausible churn drivers include:

Reporting/export rigidity
International deployment limitations
Relative platform maturity gaps (template library depth, campaign editing constraints)

02Why they buy

Unique selling points supported by customer feedback

Realistic simulations as perceived by multiple reviewers (multi-channel scenarios and deepfake-style content)
Rapid product iteration and responsive support reported by reviewers
Customization of training content to align with organizational context

Unique selling points primarily vendor-claimed (need validation)

Vendor statistics and large-percentage claims about threat growth (for example, specific percentage increases tied to public models) should be validated for methodology and sampling
Any reported high NPS or other aggregated satisfaction metrics should be validated for sample size and collection method

Where competitors may still have advantages

KnowBe4: broader template library and published pricing
Hoxhunt/SoSafe: alternative engagement models and regional/localization strategies that may be preferable in some markets

Why customers chose Adaptive over alternatives

Reviewers cite switching because of:

More current and AI-relevant content compared with some older SAT libraries
Customizability of training modules to match business context
Multi-channel simulation capability (voice/SMS-style threats)

03Field reports

Review platform availability snapshot

Presence on G2, Capterra, and Trustpilot with multiple reviewer entries and generally positive sentiment on major platforms

What customers praise (with direct quotes)

From G2 (examples):

Speed of iteration and support:
- “Adaptive is one of the very few cybersecurity organizations that evolve as quickly as bad actors do.” (Director of IT, Enterprise)
Ease of setup and Microsoft 365 integration:
- “Initial set up was extremely easy, and connected directly to our M365 environment.”
Realism of simulations:
- Reviewers cite a "jarring and realistic portrayal" of attacks and note the product's value for deepfake preparedness.

From Trustpilot (examples):

Product relevance and adoption:
- “Adaptive is the future of simulated phishing and security awareness training.”
- “We were running programs as soon as we went live.”

Common criticisms and complaints (with direct quotes)

Recurring concerns identified in review excerpts include:

Reporting flexibility:
- “One place where the platform could step up is its reporting… the tool doesn’t offer much flexibility in how that data is presented.”
Integration complexity in specific cases:
- “I found the Drata integration process to be quite technical…”
Template library maturity and operational friction:
- A reviewer noted a "limited library of phishing simulation templates" and that "you can’t edit ongoing campaigns without terminating them first."
International coverage limitations:
- “Ability to work internationally from all jurisdictions is limited…”

Specific outcomes customers achieved

Availability of case studies

Adaptive’s site includes case study references and customer logos, but full case study details and independently verifiable ROI numbers were not consistently accessible in the reviewed extracts.

Example outcomes and methodology gaps

The vendor’s communications reference rapid adoption and customer logos.
Hard ROI metrics (for example, reduced phishing click rates or incident reductions) were not presented with detailed methodology in the materials reviewed.

Critical evaluation: Treat reported outcomes as vendor-published and plausible but not independently verified. Buyers should request:

Before-and-after phishing failure rates (by channel)
Time-to-triage metrics for user-reported phishing
Evidence that observed improvements persist beyond the initial rollout period

04Best fit

Company sizes

Best fit appears to be:

Mid-market (50–1,000 employees) to enterprise (1,000+ employees)
Particularly where security teams aim to address AI-enabled fraud risks with simulations

Industries where adoption seems strongest

Based on vendor references and review context:

Financial services
Healthcare systems
Technology / software companies
Professional sports / entertainment brands

Roles and personas

Decision makers: CISO, Head of Security/GRC, VP Security, IT Director
Admin users: security awareness program managers, IAM/security engineers responsible for integrations
End users: all employees, with focused scenarios for executives and other high-risk roles

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Organizations seeking simulations beyond standard email phishing (including voice and SMS scenarios)
Organizations with leadership support for realistic exercises
Organizations that value vendor responsiveness and frequent product updates

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Interactive security training modules (micro-learning oriented)
Multi-channel phishing simulations (email, SMS, voice; vendor also markets deepfake scenarios)
A phishing-reporting workflow with AI-assisted triage (referred to by the vendor as “Phish Triage”)
OSINT risk analytics / digital footprint visibility intended to model potential attacker approaches

Vendor materials emphasize preparing employees for simulations that emulate targeted, AI-generated attacks rather than template-based phishing tests.

Target market and market positioning

Adaptive targets:

Mid-market to enterprise organizations seeking higher realism and customization than some legacy SAT platforms
Security/GRC teams that require combined training, simulation, and reporting capabilities
Industries with elevated fraud exposure or compliance requirements (financial services, healthcare, technology), as well as certain brand-sensitive organizations

Review summaries indicate usage across mid-market and enterprise segments and frequent references to integration with Microsoft 365, phishing reporting buttons, and vendor replacements for other SAT tools.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Adaptive Security including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →