Riot

Name: Riot
Brand: Riot
Rating: 4.7 (146 reviews)

AI Native

Conscientious companies use Riot to prepare their teams for cyberattacks. Get your team protected today!

Est 2020|Valuation $172M|Raised $41.9M

LinkedIn 13K|Web traffic 53K|FTEs 140|HQ San Francisco, California, US

MarketsSecurity Awareness & Training

Published Sep 26, 2026

01Common complaints

An alternative may be preferable when: - The organization is a large enterprise with strict governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) needs that require extensive out-of-the-box governance workflows, complex segmentation, and mature reporting; incumbents such as KnowBe4, Proofpoint, or Mimecast may better meet these requirements. - Cost sensitivity is the primary driver and only baseline SAT and phishing simulations are required; Riot’s published price ($6.89/user/month billed annually) may be less competitive compared with some lower-cost options. - The environment is highly complex (multiple Slack workspaces, frequent M&A activity, hybrid identity) and requires battle-tested integration playbooks. - Procurement requires publicly documented certifications, subprocessor lists, and clear data residency options without engaging the vendor sales process.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Requirement for highly advanced, deeply customizable enterprise reporting and complex governance from day one
Need for strict data residency guarantees or specific compliance attestations not publicly documented
Requirement for highly contextual, advanced AI coaching; reviewers have flagged limitations in AI depth

Issues noted in reviews

Delays in receiving verification codes (email/SMS) impacting usability.
KPI retrieval and cross-feature coherence gaps.
Manual administrative overhead remains in some areas (e.g., annual scheduling not automatically rolled forward).
Slack integration can be complex depending on organizational configuration.

Vendor-acknowledged or implied limitations

The vendor’s Series B announcement describes features as "coming soon" (aggregated security dashboard, expanded training, improved simulations, enhanced protections), which suggests some capabilities were in development at the time of the announcement.

Security/compliance gaps (public documentation limits)

Data residency options are not clearly documented in the captured sources.
The full list of security certifications beyond SOC 2 Type 2 is not publicly documented in the captured materials.

02Why they buy

Claims supported partially by reviews and press: - A posture described as requiring minimal ongoing administration, supported by automatic team syncing and simplified management features. - Training designed to promote engagement; several reviewers reference a character called "Albert" and describe training as engaging. - A direction toward a bundled employee-security offering that combines training, simulations, breach monitoring, and inbox-based reporting. Balanced view: - Several unique selling point items are vendor claims (for example, 24/7 premium support at no additional charge) and should be validated through references and SLA review.

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment (G2)

Riot has an active review page on G2. Examples of positive themes described by reviewers: - Usability and engagement: reviewers describe the platform as enjoyable and easy to adopt; several mention the "Albert" character. - Combining training + testing: reviewers cite a balance between educational materials and phishing readiness testing. - Integrations: Slack and email engagement are frequently mentioned as beneficial. Examples of critical / negative feedback on G2: - Reviewers reported delays in receiving verification codes from emails or messages, implying friction in authentication/verification flows. - Reviewers stated that retrieval of relevant KPIs can be laborious and described a lack of coherence between Awareness, Simulation, and Breach modules. - Admin automation gaps: some reviewers noted that annual course schedules are not automatically carried over and must be set manually. - AI quality: some reviewers indicated that AI responses could be improved and are not always sufficiently related to the company context. - Slack integration: reviewers reported that Slack integration can be complicated to configure and reconfigure, especially in complex organizational scenarios such as mergers. G2 meta-notes to interpret carefully: - Some Riot reviews are marked "Incentivized" and/or "Seller invite," which can skew sentiment.

Community/social sentiment (Reddit)

Direct Riot-specific user discussions are less common than for incumbents (KnowBe4, Proofpoint), but Riot is mentioned in practitioner communities: - In an MSP-focused subreddit thread about language support, a commenter suggests Riot's product website as an option for multilingual SAT, indicating Riot is considered among workable options for some needs. - Broader practitioner threads about security awareness training often criticize the category: employees may "click through," completion may be compliance-driven, and engagement is hard to sustain. These macro-level complaints are relevant to Riot buyers. Important caveat: - "Riot" is a highly ambiguous name online (Riot Games, Riot Platforms/Blockchain, etc.). Many social posts that appear for "Riot" are unrelated to the vendor's offering.

Gartner Peer Insights (attempted)

Accessing vendor-specific Gartner Peer Insights review pages can require an account. A direct Riot review page was not identified in the captured sources.

Why customers choose Riot (as suggested by reviews/press)

Preference for lighter-weight, continuous training versus traditional LMS-style annual programs
Desire for Slack/Teams-adjacent workflows
Wanting a combined platform (training + simulation + breach-related features) with a simplified administrative experience

Why some customers may leave / not buy (inferred from criticisms)

If KPI/reporting and cross-module coherence are critical, some reviewers report friction.
If deep, context-rich AI coaching is required, reviewers have noted limitations.
If an environment is complex (multiple Slack workspaces, mergers), integration setup may be non-trivial.

Case Studies

Riot’s website includes a "Success stories" section link, but detailed case-study content was not captured in the provided excerpts. What is available from vendor and press claims: - A press outlet reported Riot reached notable annual revenue in 2024. - A vendor blog post tied to a recent funding round discussed planned expansion (e.g., aggregated security dashboard; enhanced protections against exfiltration/infostealers/oversharing) but did not provide independently validated ROI metrics. Critical evaluation: - Vendor-published metrics (e.g., customer count, training effectiveness) are not presented with an accompanying methodology in the captured sources. - For procurement, missing items include measurable reduction in click rates over time, incident-reduction correlations, and benchmarking methodology.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Based on positioning, pricing transparency, and references to fast-growing companies:

Best fit is likely upper SMB to mid-market organizations, though suitability may extend higher depending on enterprise-feature needs and negotiated pricing.

Industries / verticals

Not explicitly specified in the captured sources. Likely fits organizations where:

Phishing and social engineering risk is material
Employees are knowledge workers using email, Slack, or Teams routinely

Roles and personas

Decision makers: CISO, Head of Security, IT Director, Security Operations lead
Administrative users: security admins and IT admins
End users: general employee population targeted for awareness and behavior change

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Desire for rapid deployment and reduced administrative overhead
Preference for training delivered via Slack/email
Interest in an integrated approach to employee security beyond basic phishing tests

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Riot is an employee security platform focused on reducing human-driven security risk (phishing, social engineering, credential reuse, oversharing, and related behaviors) through awareness training, simulations, and employee-facing workflows embedded into daily tools. On its website, Riot presents an alternative to traditional annual training by emphasizing continuous, lightweight training and testing. Key modules presented on Riot’s navigation and marketing pages include: - Awareness (training content) - Studio (create/customize courses) - Simulation (phishing simulations) - Sonar (permission drift / access risk) - Inbox (24/7 cybersecurity hotline) - Breaches (real-time breach detection) (These module names and positioning appear on Riot’s website menus and homepage.)

Target market and market positioning

Riot’s positioning targets: - SMBs and mid-market security teams that want security awareness designed to require minimal ongoing administration - Organizations that value rapid deployment and integration with common identity/collaboration systems - Organizations seeking more engaging training experiences (gamification/character-led learning is referenced in reviews and press) Riot’s pricing page claims it is trusted by a large number of companies and the product is designed to be simple to set up and maintain.

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

Download full report →

Published Sep 26, 2026

01Common complaints

An alternative may be preferable when:

The organization is a large enterprise with strict governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) needs that require extensive out-of-the-box governance workflows, complex segmentation, and mature reporting; incumbents such as KnowBe4, Proofpoint, or Mimecast may better meet these requirements.
Cost sensitivity is the primary driver and only baseline SAT and phishing simulations are required; Riot’s published price ($6.89/user/month billed annually) may be less competitive compared with some lower-cost options.
The environment is highly complex (multiple Slack workspaces, frequent M&A activity, hybrid identity) and requires battle-tested integration playbooks.
Procurement requires publicly documented certifications, subprocessor lists, and clear data residency options without engaging the vendor sales process.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Requirement for highly advanced, deeply customizable enterprise reporting and complex governance from day one
Need for strict data residency guarantees or specific compliance attestations not publicly documented
Requirement for highly contextual, advanced AI coaching; reviewers have flagged limitations in AI depth

Issues noted in reviews

Delays in receiving verification codes (email/SMS) impacting usability.
KPI retrieval and cross-feature coherence gaps.
Manual administrative overhead remains in some areas (e.g., annual scheduling not automatically rolled forward).
Slack integration can be complex depending on organizational configuration.

Vendor-acknowledged or implied limitations

The vendor’s Series B announcement describes features as "coming soon" (aggregated security dashboard, expanded training, improved simulations, enhanced protections), which suggests some capabilities were in development at the time of the announcement.

Security/compliance gaps (public documentation limits)

Data residency options are not clearly documented in the captured sources.
The full list of security certifications beyond SOC 2 Type 2 is not publicly documented in the captured materials.

02Why they buy

Claims supported partially by reviews and press:

A posture described as requiring minimal ongoing administration, supported by automatic team syncing and simplified management features.
Training designed to promote engagement; several reviewers reference a character called "Albert" and describe training as engaging.
A direction toward a bundled employee-security offering that combines training, simulations, breach monitoring, and inbox-based reporting.

Balanced view:

Several unique selling point items are vendor claims (for example, 24/7 premium support at no additional charge) and should be validated through references and SLA review.

03Field reports

Review-platform sentiment (G2)

Riot has an active review page on G2. Examples of positive themes described by reviewers:

Usability and engagement: reviewers describe the platform as enjoyable and easy to adopt; several mention the "Albert" character.
Combining training + testing: reviewers cite a balance between educational materials and phishing readiness testing.
Integrations: Slack and email engagement are frequently mentioned as beneficial.

Examples of critical / negative feedback on G2:

Reviewers reported delays in receiving verification codes from emails or messages, implying friction in authentication/verification flows.
Reviewers stated that retrieval of relevant KPIs can be laborious and described a lack of coherence between Awareness, Simulation, and Breach modules.
Admin automation gaps: some reviewers noted that annual course schedules are not automatically carried over and must be set manually.
AI quality: some reviewers indicated that AI responses could be improved and are not always sufficiently related to the company context.
Slack integration: reviewers reported that Slack integration can be complicated to configure and reconfigure, especially in complex organizational scenarios such as mergers.

G2 meta-notes to interpret carefully:

Some Riot reviews are marked "Incentivized" and/or "Seller invite," which can skew sentiment.

Community/social sentiment (Reddit)

Direct Riot-specific user discussions are less common than for incumbents (KnowBe4, Proofpoint), but Riot is mentioned in practitioner communities:

In an MSP-focused subreddit thread about language support, a commenter suggests Riot's product website as an option for multilingual SAT, indicating Riot is considered among workable options for some needs.
Broader practitioner threads about security awareness training often criticize the category: employees may "click through," completion may be compliance-driven, and engagement is hard to sustain. These macro-level complaints are relevant to Riot buyers.

Important caveat:

"Riot" is a highly ambiguous name online (Riot Games, Riot Platforms/Blockchain, etc.). Many social posts that appear for "Riot" are unrelated to the vendor's offering.

Gartner Peer Insights (attempted)

Accessing vendor-specific Gartner Peer Insights review pages can require an account. A direct Riot review page was not identified in the captured sources.

Why customers choose Riot (as suggested by reviews/press)

Preference for lighter-weight, continuous training versus traditional LMS-style annual programs
Desire for Slack/Teams-adjacent workflows
Wanting a combined platform (training + simulation + breach-related features) with a simplified administrative experience

Why some customers may leave / not buy (inferred from criticisms)

If KPI/reporting and cross-module coherence are critical, some reviewers report friction.
If deep, context-rich AI coaching is required, reviewers have noted limitations.
If an environment is complex (multiple Slack workspaces, mergers), integration setup may be non-trivial.

Case Studies

Riot’s website includes a "Success stories" section link, but detailed case-study content was not captured in the provided excerpts.

What is available from vendor and press claims:

A press outlet reported Riot reached notable annual revenue in 2024.
A vendor blog post tied to a recent funding round discussed planned expansion (e.g., aggregated security dashboard; enhanced protections against exfiltration/infostealers/oversharing) but did not provide independently validated ROI metrics.

Critical evaluation:

Vendor-published metrics (e.g., customer count, training effectiveness) are not presented with an accompanying methodology in the captured sources.
For procurement, missing items include measurable reduction in click rates over time, incident-reduction correlations, and benchmarking methodology.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Based on positioning, pricing transparency, and references to fast-growing companies:

Best fit is likely upper SMB to mid-market organizations, though suitability may extend higher depending on enterprise-feature needs and negotiated pricing.

Industries / verticals

Not explicitly specified in the captured sources. Likely fits organizations where:

Phishing and social engineering risk is material
Employees are knowledge workers using email, Slack, or Teams routinely

Roles and personas

Decision makers: CISO, Head of Security, IT Director, Security Operations lead
Administrative users: security admins and IT admins
End users: general employee population targeted for awareness and behavior change

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Desire for rapid deployment and reduced administrative overhead
Preference for training delivered via Slack/email
Interest in an integrated approach to employee security beyond basic phishing tests

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Key modules presented on Riot’s navigation and marketing pages include:

Awareness (training content)
Studio (create/customize courses)
Simulation (phishing simulations)
Sonar (permission drift / access risk)
Inbox (24/7 cybersecurity hotline)
Breaches (real-time breach detection)

(These module names and positioning appear on Riot’s website menus and homepage.)

Target market and market positioning

Riot’s positioning targets:

SMBs and mid-market security teams that want security awareness designed to require minimal ongoing administration
Organizations that value rapid deployment and integration with common identity/collaboration systems
Organizations seeking more engaging training experiences (gamification/character-led learning is referenced in reviews and press)

Riot’s pricing page claims it is trusted by a large number of companies and the product is designed to be simple to set up and maintain.

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

Download full report →