Index › Vendors › GoPhish · September 2026 Edition

1 category · Named, not ranked

GoPhish

10Judge labels

0First choices

7Negative labels

5 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

3 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. GoPhish was named 3 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 business50 of 50

under the label threshold

Mid-market30 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise43 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 GoPhish 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%	30 of 65	33%	3	under 10 labels · led by KnowBe4 at 42%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for GoPhish 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 GoPhish across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

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

Direct0 labelsNone

Paraphrase6 labelsNone

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative2 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative10 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.

“If you have $0 and a tech-savvy admin: Set up GoPhish for phishing tests” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Awareness training · budget prompt · alternative

“Requires IT/ops effort to host and maintain; no built-in training” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Awareness training · paraphrase 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.

“reasonable only if cost is the deciding factor and your team can maintain it” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Awareness training · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as GoPhish, over the 10 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and GoPhish was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

KnowBe48 of 105Not in the top three

Hook Security7 of 100Not in the top three

Wizer5 of 103Not in the top three

Microsoft Attack Simulation Training4 of 101Not in the top three

Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training4 of 100Not in the top three

Hoxhunt3 of 100Not in the top three

Mimecast Engage3 of 100Not in the top three

Proofpoint ZenGuide3 of 100Not in the top three

CanIPhish2 of 100Not in the top three

Cofense PhishMe2 of 100Not 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 GoPhish. 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 7 of the 10 answers that named GoPhish and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

cipherssecurity.com7

expertinsights.com6

baitandphish.com5

hoxhunt.com5

eastbaycyber.com4

hooksecurity.co4

knowbe4.com4

bossbot.uk3

defendify.com3

g2.com3

No domain is on file for GoPhish, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

cipherssecurity.com/best-phishing-simulation-tools-20267

expertinsights.com/security-awareness-training/the-top-phishing-awareness-training-and-sim6

baitandphish.com/blog/best-phishing-simulation-smb5

eastbaycyber.com/content/compare-best-phishing-simulation-platforms-20264

expertinsights.com/security-awareness-training/the-top-phishing-simulation-and-testing-sol4

hoxhunt.com/blog/best-phishing-simulation-tools4

bossbot.uk/blog/phishing-simulation-small-business3

defendify.com/blog/phishing-simulation-tools3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as GoPhish

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as GoPhish; a claim can dispute any of them.

GoPhish (Open-Source Phishing Simulator) 1GoPhish (free/self-hosted) 1

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 GoPhish'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 GoPhish, 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 the vendor's own domain 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.