IT AI Index

Index › Vendors › Microsoft Attack Simulation Training · September 2026 Edition

Microsoft · 1 category · Named, not ranked

Microsoft Attack Simulation Training

19Judge labels

3First choices

1Negative labels

9 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

7 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Microsoft Attack Simulation Training was named 7 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 business5 of 50

under the label threshold

Mid-market17 of 65

under the label threshold

Enterprise4 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 Microsoft Attack Simulation Training 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%	17 of 65	14%	7	under 10 labels · led by KnowBe4 at 42%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Microsoft Attack Simulation Training 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 Microsoft Attack Simulation Training 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	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	1	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	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

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase7 labels1

Comparative0 labelsNone

Budget-constrained10 labels2

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative1 label1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative19 labels in all, every segment counted; 3 of the 4 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're already on M365 E5 ... start with Microsoft 365 Attack Simulation Training” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Awareness training · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“the built-in Attack Simulator is recommended as a no-cost starting point” Perplexity Sonar · Awareness training · budget prompt · alternative

“I'd consider Microsoft Attack Simulation Training as a second option” GPT-5.4 mini · Awareness training · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Start with free options: Microsoft Attack Simulator (if you have M365)” MiniMax M2.5 · Awareness training · budget 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.

“more often listed as a fit alongside other mid-market options rather than the top all-purpose pick” Perplexity Sonar · Awareness training · paraphrase prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Microsoft Attack Simulation Training, over the 19 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Microsoft Attack Simulation Training was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

KnowBe418 of 197Not in the top three

Hook Security10 of 192Not in the top three

Wizer8 of 197Not in the top three

Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training8 of 191Not in the top three

Proofpoint ZenGuide7 of 190Not in the top three

Hoxhunt6 of 192Not in the top three

CanIPhish5 of 192Not in the top three

GoPhish4 of 190Not in the top three

Cofense PhishMe2 of 190Not in the top three

Mimecast Engage2 of 190Not 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 Microsoft Attack Simulation Training. 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 19 answers that named Microsoft Attack Simulation Training and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

hoxhunt.com10

cipherssecurity.com9

smallbizsecurityguide.com9

expertinsights.com8

hooksecurity.co8

adaptivesecurity.com7

knowbe4.com7

learn.g2.com7

hookphish.com5

g2.com4

Seventy-four of the seventy-four domain citations in answers naming Microsoft Attack Simulation Training came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

smallbizsecurityguide.com/best-security-awareness-training-platforms-20269

hooksecurity.co/blog/best-security-awareness-training-small-business8

hoxhunt.com/blog/best-security-awareness-training7

learn.g2.com/best-security-awareness-training-software7

cipherssecurity.com/best-phishing-simulation-tools-20266

expertinsights.com/security-awareness-training/the-top-phishing-awareness-training-and-sim5

cipherssecurity.com/best-security-awareness-training-platforms4

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

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Microsoft Attack Simulation Training

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

Microsoft Attack Simulator 2Attack Simulator 1Microsoft 365 Attack Simulation Training 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 Microsoft Attack Simulation Training'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 Microsoft Attack Simulation Training, 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 microsoft.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.