TryHackMe

Name: TryHackMe
Brand: TryHackMe

TryHackMe is an online, cloud-based, cyber security training platform used by individuals and academics alike.

Est 2018|28 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 808K|Web traffic 6.6M|FTEs 1,002|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsLearning Management System (LMS)

01Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | TryHackMe | Hack The Box (HTB) | PentesterLab | |--------|-----------|--------------------|--------------| | Starting Price | Published individual plans; vendor references Premium/MAX; business pricing is sales-led | VIP+ is a primary individual plan for HTB Labs; pricing was recently updated | Pro subscription offered (pricing published on PentesterLab Pro page) | | Primary Use Case | Guided, beginner-friendly hands-on learning across broad cyber topics | Challenge-driven labs/CTF style; often perceived as more advanced and less guided | Deep web application hacking practice and security code review focus | | Key Strength | Structured learning paths and browser-based labs; approachable onboarding | Advanced “box” practice and strong CTF community presence; breadth of labs | Focus on real vulnerabilities/CVEs and web security depth | | Key Weakness | Community complaints about paid-tier gating and exam friction; limited public enterprise security detail | Pricing complexity and price increases; may be less beginner-friendly without guidance | Narrower scope for teams seeking broad defensive or SOC content | - Narrative analysis - TryHackMe vs Hack The Box - TryHackMe emphasizes guided learning paths and onboarding. - HTB is commonly used as a subsequent step for learners seeking less-guided, open-ended problem solving. - TryHackMe vs PentesterLab - PentesterLab is narrower and deeper for web exploitation and code review, which can be preferable for web security specialists. - TryHackMe is positioned as a generalist platform suitable for mixed offensive/defensive exploration. - TryHackMe vs LetsDefend - LetsDefend focuses on SOC/blue-team workflows and alert triage realism; depending on learning objectives, it may be a better fit for operational blue-team training. - Market share and adoption trends - The vendor reports a large number of registered users and numerous organizational customers, but independent market share data was not located in the accessible sources.

01Competitive Landscape

Aspect	TryHackMe	Hack The Box (HTB)	PentesterLab
Starting Price	Published individual plans; vendor references Premium/MAX; business pricing is sales-led	VIP+ is a primary individual plan for HTB Labs; pricing was recently updated	Pro subscription offered (pricing published on PentesterLab Pro page)
Primary Use Case	Guided, beginner-friendly hands-on learning across broad cyber topics	Challenge-driven labs/CTF style; often perceived as more advanced and less guided	Deep web application hacking practice and security code review focus
Key Strength	Structured learning paths and browser-based labs; approachable onboarding	Advanced “box” practice and strong CTF community presence; breadth of labs	Focus on real vulnerabilities/CVEs and web security depth
Key Weakness	Community complaints about paid-tier gating and exam friction; limited public enterprise security detail	Pricing complexity and price increases; may be less beginner-friendly without guidance	Narrower scope for teams seeking broad defensive or SOC content

Narrative analysis
- TryHackMe vs Hack The Box
  - TryHackMe emphasizes guided learning paths and onboarding.
  - HTB is commonly used as a subsequent step for learners seeking less-guided, open-ended problem solving.
- TryHackMe vs PentesterLab
  - PentesterLab is narrower and deeper for web exploitation and code review, which can be preferable for web security specialists.
  - TryHackMe is positioned as a generalist platform suitable for mixed offensive/defensive exploration.
- TryHackMe vs LetsDefend
  - LetsDefend focuses on SOC/blue-team workflows and alert triage realism; depending on learning objectives, it may be a better fit for operational blue-team training.
Market share and adoption trends
- The vendor reports a large number of registered users and numerous organizational customers, but independent market share data was not located in the accessible sources.