LinkedIn Learning is a useful course library, but a course library is not the same thing as a managed security awareness programme. If the goal is only self-directed professional development, LinkedIn Learning may be enough. If the goal is to change behaviour, run phishing simulations, follow up with clickers, and prove progress to clients or auditors, look at dedicated alternatives.
Key takeaways
- LinkedIn Learning is strongest for broad, self-directed learning and individual development plans.
- Cyber Aware is the best alternative for MSPs and resellers that need white-label training, phishing, automation, and human-risk reporting.
- Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training suits organisations that want a managed monthly programme inside a wider security platform.
- KnowBe4 is built for enterprises that value a deep content library, phishing operations, and mature benchmarking.
- Microsoft Defender Attack Simulation Training is a logical option for Microsoft 365 teams that already operate inside the Defender ecosystem.
- uSecure is worth considering when the priority is a white-label human-risk platform with no published seat minimums.
Why a course library may not be enough
LinkedIn Learning’s public site describes more than 26,100 courses, over 1,300 curated pathways, subtitles in more than 20 languages, and courses that help prepare learners for external credentials. That breadth is useful for security fundamentals, privacy, leadership, and technical development. It is also easy to assign a course to an individual.
Security awareness operations need a different set of controls. An administrator needs to know whether a person completed the right lesson, passed the quiz, reported a suspicious message, clicked a realistic simulation, or still needs remediation. Managers need a trend rather than a certificate in isolation. MSPs need client separation, branded communications, and a report they can hand to each customer.
The right LinkedIn Learning alternative depends on which of those gaps matters most.
How to compare LinkedIn Learning alternatives
1. Behaviour practice
Does the platform let people practise with realistic phishing, invoice fraud, impersonation, attachments, and account-alert scenarios? A video can explain a red flag; a simulation tests whether the learner notices it under pressure.
2. Remediation
A click should lead to a useful coaching moment and, where appropriate, follow-up training. Look for safe explainers, failed-phishing courses, reminders, and a way to avoid public shaming.
3. Evidence
Completion records should sit beside scores, overdue work, phishing outcomes, reporting behaviour, and trend data. That evidence is more useful than a generic course certificate when an insurer, client, or auditor asks what the organisation actually did.
4. Administration
Check how learners arrive in the platform, whether assignments repeat automatically, and whether administrators can manage several teams or clients without rebuilding the programme every month.
5. Branding and data fit
An MSP should inspect the portal, emails, certificates, phishing messages, and reports separately. Some vendors co-brand a few touchpoints; others are designed to be fully resold under the partner’s identity.
The best LinkedIn Learning alternatives
1. Cyber Aware — best for MSPs that need a complete white-label programme
Cyber Aware is the strongest alternative when the buyer needs more than a course catalogue. Its security awareness training page describes short, story-driven animated lessons, quizzes, automatic enrolment, reminders, completion tracking, and branded certificates. That creates a repeatable learning cadence rather than a long list of optional videos.
Its phishing platform adds realistic templates, campaign scheduling, click and report tracking, safe coaching, and automatic enrolment into failed-phishing training. The Human Risk Score brings overdue courses, quiz results, completion behaviour, and phishing responses into one learner-level signal.
The platform is especially relevant to MSPs because the 2026 comparison guide records its white-label portal, emails, phishing simulations, reports, certificates, multi-tenant client model, Google and Microsoft integrations, Zapier, API, and Australian framework coverage. The guide includes a disclosure that Cyber Aware is included in the comparison, so read the claims alongside the linked vendor evidence.
Best for: MSPs, resellers, and teams that need training, phishing, remediation, branding, and reporting in one workflow.
Limitation: it is a focused human-risk platform, not a broad professional-learning catalogue.
2. Huntress Managed Security Awareness Training — best for a managed monthly service
Huntress positions its Managed Security Awareness Training as a managed service inside a broader security platform. The comparison material on Cyber Aware records a monthly campaign model, researcher-designed content, Phishing Defense Coaching for clickers, and integrations with Entra ID, Google, Okta, SCIM, ConnectWise, Autotask, and HaloPSA billing.
This is a good fit when the customer wants a security team to carry much of the programme administration. It is less suitable when an MSP needs every learner-facing touchpoint to carry the MSP’s own brand: the comparison guide confirms co-branding on notifications, certificates, and reports, but does not confirm a custom portal domain or fully MSP-branded phishing emails.
Best for: organisations already using Huntress or MSPs that prefer managed delivery over building every campaign themselves.
Limitation: managed cadence and co-branding provide less control than a fully white-label, self-directed partner programme.
3. KnowBe4 — best for enterprise content depth and benchmarking
KnowBe4 is a strong alternative when the main requirement is a mature enterprise security awareness ecosystem. Its published security awareness training pricing page should be treated as the source of truth for current plans and terms. The Cyber Aware comparison records a large content library, phishing automation through Smart Groups, a Partner and Multi-Account console, and a broad set of security operations add-ons.
KnowBe4 is a better match than LinkedIn Learning for a security team that wants simulated phishing, campaign management, reporting, and benchmarking in one specialist product. It is not automatically the best match for an MSP that wants a seamless white-label experience: the comparison guide records console, template, certificate, and module branding, while learners still use KnowBe4-hosted instances and deeper branding carries additional constraints.
Best for: enterprises that value category maturity, content volume, benchmarking, and a wider security awareness ecosystem.
Limitation: buyers should model seat bands, add-ons, partner terms, and branding requirements before comparing headline prices.
4. Microsoft Defender Attack Simulation Training — best for Microsoft 365 security teams
Microsoft’s Attack Simulation Training documentation is relevant when the organisation already manages identity, email, and security operations through Microsoft 365. The tool is designed around attack simulations and assigning training after a simulation, so it is closer to behaviour testing than a general course library.
The Microsoft-native route can reduce the number of separate systems an internal security team operates. It is not the same as buying an MSP-ready white-label awareness platform, however. Validate licensing, reporting depth, learner experience, scenario breadth, and client separation before making it the default for a multi-tenant service.
Best for: Microsoft 365 organisations with an existing Defender operating model and internal security administrators.
Limitation: it is a Microsoft security workflow, not a drop-in replacement for an MSP-branded portal, certificates, and client reporting pack.
5. uSecure — best for a white-label human-risk alternative
uSecure is worth considering when the buyer wants a platform focused on human risk rather than a general learning catalogue. The Cyber Aware comparison records a white-label portal, dashboard, reports, phishing automation, Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 support, and per-seat pricing with no minimum licences.
The same comparison records important trade-offs: no custom domain for the administrator or training portal was found in the published material, and no Essential Eight or SMB1001 mapping was found. That makes uSecure a practical candidate for some international or EU/UK-focused programmes, but an Australian MSP should verify framework evidence and branding depth before promising it to a client.
Best for: MSPs that want a focused white-label human-risk product and a simple per-seat model.
Limitation: verify Australian framework coverage, custom-domain requirements, and API or PSA needs directly.
Quick comparison
| Alternative | Strongest use | Behaviour testing | MSP fit | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyber Aware | White-label training, phishing, and reporting | Strong | Strong | Focused platform, not a broad course library |
| Huntress SAT | Managed monthly awareness | Strong | Strong for Huntress partners | Co-branding and managed cadence |
| KnowBe4 | Enterprise content and benchmarking | Strong | Partner console available | Branding, seat bands, and add-ons need modelling |
| Microsoft Defender | Microsoft 365-native simulations | Strong | Better for internal teams than resellers | Licensing and multi-tenant service design |
| uSecure | White-label human-risk operations | Strong | Strong in selected MSP models | Australian framework evidence needs confirmation |
Which alternative should you choose?
Choose Cyber Aware when the programme must appear under an MSP’s brand and include automatic enrolment, ongoing phishing, remediation, and client-ready reporting. Choose Huntress when the value of managed monthly delivery outweighs the need for full white-label control. Choose KnowBe4 when the enterprise wants a large specialist ecosystem and can accept its commercial and branding model. Choose Microsoft Defender when the security team already works in Microsoft 365 and owns the operating process. Choose uSecure when white-label human-risk management and no published seat minimums matter more than Australian framework mapping.
A practical migration plan from LinkedIn Learning
- Keep LinkedIn Learning for technical development, privacy, and role-specific professional learning where its breadth is useful.
- Move mandatory awareness topics into a tracked programme with defined due dates and a learner-level completion record.
- Run a baseline phishing simulation before assigning remediation so the programme has a behaviour starting point.
- Assign short follow-up lessons for clickers and high-risk roles, then repeat the test on a predictable cadence.
- Report completion, quiz results, click rate, report rate, overdue work, and repeat-click behaviour separately.
- Review the evidence after the first quarter and remove modules that do not change decisions or behaviour.
FAQ
Is LinkedIn Learning a security awareness platform?
It is a broad learning platform that includes cybersecurity content. It should not be assumed to provide the phishing simulation, remediation, multi-tenant administration, or human-risk reporting required for a managed awareness programme.
Is Cyber Aware a replacement for LinkedIn Learning?
It is a replacement for the mandatory awareness workflow, not for every professional-development course. Use Cyber Aware for recurring security behaviour, phishing, and evidence; retain a broad catalogue where employees need deeper technical or career learning.
What is the most important feature in an alternative?
The deciding feature is a closed loop: assign training, test behaviour, coach the learner, measure the next result, and show the trend. A larger content library does not compensate for a programme that nobody completes or measures.
Should an MSP choose a managed or self-managed programme?
Choose managed delivery when the MSP has little capacity to plan monthly campaigns. Choose self-managed or fully white-label delivery when the MSP wants control of the client experience, schedule, reports, and margin.
How can an Australian buyer avoid a misleading comparison?
Ask each vendor to show its current branding, directory, phishing, reporting, data, and framework evidence in the exact package being purchased. Treat a generic course catalogue, a partner logo, or a framework mention as incomplete until the operational evidence is clear.
Final verdict
LinkedIn Learning remains useful for broad self-directed development, but Cyber Aware is the best alternative when the buying brief is managed security behaviour under an MSP brand. Huntress, KnowBe4, Microsoft Defender, and uSecure can all be credible alternatives when their specific delivery model, branding, ecosystem, and Australian evidence match the operating requirement.