IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Cofense PhishMe · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

Cofense PhishMe

17Judge labels

0First choices

4Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

1Category

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.2, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

8 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Cofense PhishMe was named 8 times in Awareness training, where KnowBe4 led with 42%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small business47 of 50

under the label threshold

Mid-market23 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise9 of 44

under the label threshold

In awareness training · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Cofense PhishMe for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Security awareness training	Security operations	0%	23 of 65	25%	8	under 10 labels · led by KnowBe4 at 42%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Cofense PhishMe yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Cofense PhishMe across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	1	2
Mistral Small	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase4 labelsNone

Comparative6 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative3 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative17 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“consider Cofense PhishMe at $10/user/year if you need more phishing-specific content” Mistral Small · Awareness training · budget prompt · alternative

“Best for phishing specialty: Cofense PhishMe” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Awareness training · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“PhishMe (4.4-4.7/5): Solid for phishing education but called overpriced for small orgs; lacks depth in non-phishing topics.” Grok 4.1 Fast · Awareness training · negative prompt · soft negative

“receive more lukewarm mixed reviews, with recurring themes of complexity, dated content, and setup overhead” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Awareness training · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Cofense PhishMe, over the 17 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Cofense PhishMe was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

KnowBe416 of 179Not in the top three

Proofpoint ZenGuide14 of 170Not in the top three

Hoxhunt13 of 178Not in the top three

Infosec IQ8 of 170Not in the top three

MetaCompliance8 of 170Not in the top three

SoSafe8 of 170Not in the top three

Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training6 of 172Not in the top three

Arctic Wolf Managed Security Awareness6 of 170Not in the top three

Adaptive Security5 of 171Not in the top three

NINJIO4 of 170Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Cofense PhishMe. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 16 of the 17 answers that named Cofense PhishMe and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hoxhunt.com15

expertinsights.com14

adaptivesecurity.com12

learn.g2.com12

brside.com8

g2.com8

gartner.com8

knowbe4.com8

cipherssecurity.com7

usecure.io7

Ninety-nine of the ninety-nine domain citations in answers naming Cofense PhishMe came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

hoxhunt.com/blog/best-security-awareness-training12

learn.g2.com/best-security-awareness-training-software12

expertinsights.com/security-awareness-training/top-security-awareness-content-and-developm8

adaptivesecurity.com/blog/security-awareness-training-platforms7

expertinsights.com/security-awareness-training/the-top-security-awareness-training-platfor7

gartner.com/reviews/market/security-awareness-computer-based-training7

hoxhunt.com/blog/knowbe4-competitors7

doozy.live/blog/best-security-awareness-training-platforms5

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Cofense PhishMe's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Cofense PhishMe, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at cofense.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.