A phishing report button is only the beginning. The security awareness platform must turn a staff report into a useful signal: preserve the message, classify it, identify who else received it, remove the threat where possible, give the reporter feedback and show whether the organisation is becoming safer.
This 2026 comparison ranks security awareness platforms with phishing report analysis for Australian organisations, MSPs and security teams. It separates three things that are often bundled together: simulated-phishing analytics, user-reported message triage and human-risk reporting. Start with a cyber security gap assessment if the reporting route, owner or response time is not defined yet.
TL;DR
- Cyber Aware is the best fit for MSPs that want training, phishing practice and human-risk reporting under a branded operating model.
- Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is the best fit for organisations already standardised on Microsoft 365 and needing user-reported message triage inside the security stack.
- KnowBe4 is the best fit for a dedicated awareness team that wants a report button connected to PhishER and a broad training operation.
- Proofpoint is strongest when email protection, end-user reporting and security-awareness telemetry already sit in one Proofpoint environment.
- Cofense is worth considering when phishing detection and response is the centre of the programme and repeat-reporter analysis matters.
- Compare report-to-triage time, confirmed-threat rate, repeat reporting, safe simulation reporting and remediation completion—not just clicks and course completion.
What phishing report analysis should do
A useful report-analysis workflow answers seven questions quickly:
- What did the person report? Preserve the message, headers, URL, attachment and channel needed for triage.
- Is it malicious, suspicious, spam or legitimate? Apply a consistent disposition so the team can measure the queue.
- Who else received it? Search for the same message, sender, domain or URL across the organisation.
- What action is required? Remove, block, investigate, warn, coach or close with no action.
- What should the reporter hear? A short confirmation or verdict teaches people that reporting is useful.
- Was the report part of a simulation? Keep safe exercises separate from live threat handling, while still measuring reporting behaviour.
- What does the pattern say about human risk? Connect reports, clicks, repeat behaviour and remediation to a team or cohort without turning the dashboard into a blame list.
A button that only forwards an email to a crowded mailbox is not report analysis. A dashboard that counts simulated clicks but ignores real reports is not a human-risk programme. The buying decision should begin with the handoff between the learner, the security queue and the person who owns the response.
How to compare the platforms
Use the same test script for every vendor. Ask the vendor to show a user reporting a suspicious email, an analyst triaging it, a search for other recipients, the reporter feedback, the removal or escalation step and the final report. Do not accept a slide that only shows a chart.
Score each platform against these criteria:
- Reporting reach: email clients, mobile workflows, collaboration tools and shared mailboxes that matter to the organisation.
- Evidence quality: message preservation, headers, URLs, attachments, comments and disposition history.
- Triage speed: automation, rules, analyst queues and integrations that reduce time from report to decision.
- Blast-radius analysis: the ability to find other recipients, related messages and repeat campaigns.
- Feedback: a clear, configurable response that tells the reporter what happened and reinforces safe reporting.
- Simulation separation: a clean distinction between simulated-phishing results and live incidents.
- Human-risk reporting: cohort trends, repeat behaviour, remediation and manager-level action.
- Operating model: whether an internal team, an MSP or a managed security provider can run it without duplicate spreadsheets.
Best security awareness platforms with phishing report analysis
1. Cyber Aware: best for MSPs and branded human-risk programmes
Hook: one operating model for training, simulations and reporting. Cyber Aware is built for MSPs and resellers that need to run security awareness programmes across client environments. Its phishing platform gives the programme a place to practise reporting behaviour, while human-risk reporting connects training and phishing results to a management view.
The strongest use case is a partner that wants branded delivery, recurring campaigns and a practical way to show a client which teams need follow-up. It avoids the common gap between a training completion export and a phishing spreadsheet because the service is designed around the human-risk operating cycle.
What to test: the exact workflow for forwarding or reporting a live suspicious message, the fields available to the analyst, the route from a failed simulation to coaching and the way client-level data is separated. Confirm how the platform integrates with the client’s mail environment before committing to a response promise.
Verdict: Buy for MSP-led awareness services and branded client programmes; consider for an internal team when the priority is human-risk reporting rather than deep email-security investigation.
2. Microsoft Defender for Office 365: best for Microsoft 365 security operations
Hook: user reporting is connected to the email-security stack. Microsoft documents the built-in Report button in Outlook and the user-reported message workflow in Defender for Office 365. Administrators can configure reported messages to go to a reporting mailbox, to Microsoft or to both. The user-reported messages are available to administrators on the Submissions page, and Microsoft documents alerting and automated investigation workflows for reported phishing in Defender for Office 365 Plan 2.
This is the right starting point when the organisation already operates Microsoft 365, Defender and the Submissions workflow. The security team can keep message triage close to mail telemetry instead of asking staff to forward suspicious messages to a separate awareness inbox.
The limitation is programme ownership. Defender is excellent for mail-security operations, but a buyer wanting branded learner content, role-based awareness campaigns, partner tenants and a human-risk scorecard may still need a dedicated awareness layer.
What to test: supported Outlook clients, reporting mailbox configuration, user feedback, analyst permissions, search across recipients, automated investigation availability on the subscribed plan and the export needed for the awareness manager.
Verdict: Buy when Microsoft 365 is the centre of security operations; add a dedicated awareness platform when training, simulations and human-risk management need their own operating model.
3. KnowBe4 with Phish Alert Button and PhishER: best for dedicated awareness teams
Hook: a purpose-built report button connected to an awareness platform. KnowBe4’s documentation describes the Phish Alert Button as a way for users to report potentially malicious emails; the Microsoft 365 guide says reported messages can be automatically deleted from the inbox and forwarded to the IT security team. KnowBe4’s PhishER documentation covers the inbox and processing of reported email, which gives an awareness team a defined place to classify and manage reports.
This combination makes sense when the awareness team owns both simulated phishing and the employee reporting experience. It can turn the act of reporting into a repeatable learning loop: staff report, the team triages, the person receives a useful response and the campaign data informs the next intervention.
The buying risk is a split between the awareness team and the security operations team. Decide whether PhishER is the first queue for live reports, whether the SOC takes over confirmed threats and how duplicate or sensitive messages are retained.
What to test: report-button behaviour in every mail client, simulated-message handling, user comments and disposition, forwarding and storage controls, analyst roles, live-versus-simulated labels and the export that joins reporting behaviour to training results.
Verdict: Buy for a dedicated awareness function that wants a phishing report workflow beside its training programme; hold until the SOC handoff and data-retention model are written down.
4. Proofpoint: best for an existing Proofpoint email-security estate
Hook: reporting and email protection can share a response context. Proofpoint’s official product-processing documentation describes PhishAlarm for end-user reporting and PhishAlarm Analyzer for identifying and categorising reported phishing messages so they are available to response teams. Proofpoint also describes people-risk reporting across security-awareness and email-security data.
The best fit is an organisation already using Proofpoint email protection and wanting to keep the reporting button, analysis and response context in the same vendor estate. The value comes from reducing the distance between the user’s report and the team that can investigate the message.
Do not choose it on the existence of a button alone. Ask whether the awareness manager can see reporting and simulation results at the same useful cohort level as the SOC, whether the client’s mail clients are supported and how messages reported by users are retained and handled.
What to test: the end-user report experience, PhishAlarm Analyzer triage, related-message search, response-team access, feedback to reporters and the join between people-risk and simulated-phishing data.
Verdict: Buy when Proofpoint already protects the organisation’s email and the SOC wants one response context; hold if the main need is a standalone, MSP-branded awareness service.
5. Cofense: best for phishing detection and repeat-reporter analysis
Hook: treat the user report as a detection signal. Cofense’s official service documentation names Cofense PhishMe and Cofense Reporter and describes scenario summary, repeat-clicker, repeat-reporter, comparative-analysis and behavioural-analysis reports. That makes Cofense a strong candidate when phishing detection and response—not just annual awareness training—is the centre of the programme.
The operating model should be clear before purchase. A security team needs to know who reviews reported messages, how a confirmed threat is remediated, how users receive feedback and how repeat reporters are coached without discouraging future reports.
What to test: reporter deployment across mail clients, the live-report triage route, scenario and repeat-reporter reporting, integrations with the existing email-security stack, analyst ownership and the boundary between customer-managed work and managed service work.
Verdict: Buy when phishing detection, response and behavioural analysis are the primary outcomes; consider another platform when branded, multi-client awareness delivery is the main commercial requirement.
Comparison table
| Platform | Best fit | Phishing report analysis | Human-risk and training fit | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cyber Aware | MSPs and branded client programmes | Built around phishing practice and follow-up; validate live-mail triage workflow | Strong for training, phishing and human-risk reporting | Buy for MSP delivery |
| Microsoft Defender for Office 365 | Microsoft 365 security operations | User-reported messages, submissions and Defender investigation workflows | Strong security-operations fit; dedicated awareness layer may still be needed | Buy for Microsoft estates |
| KnowBe4 + PhishER | Dedicated awareness teams | Report button, reported-email processing and an awareness-owned queue | Strong training and simulation fit | Buy after SOC handoff test |
| Proofpoint | Existing Proofpoint email-security customers | PhishAlarm and Analyzer keep reported phishing close to response teams | Strong when people-risk data is already in the estate | Buy for Proofpoint estates |
| Cofense | Detection and response-led programmes | Reporter plus repeat-reporter and behavioural analysis reporting | Strong phishing focus; validate branded training scope | Buy for phishing-led teams |
The metrics that matter
Report rate
Report rate is the percentage of recipients who use the approved reporting route. Track it for simulated messages and, where the platform allows, for real suspicious messages. A high report rate is valuable only when the queue can handle it.
Report-to-triage time
Measure the time from the first user report to an initial disposition. Set a service target by severity. A report button that creates a queue nobody monitors has increased the appearance of safety without reducing exposure.
Confirmed-threat rate
Measure how many reports are confirmed malicious or suspicious after triage. A low rate may mean staff are over-reporting, which can be fixed with feedback and examples; it may also mean the organisation has a healthy reporting culture. Never punish people for reporting a message that turns out to be legitimate.
Repeat reporting
Track whether the same people report later suspicious messages. Repeat reporting is usually a positive behaviour. Separate it from repeat clicking, then give targeted coaching to people who repeatedly interact with simulations or real threats.
Containment time
Measure the time from first report to removal, block, warning or other agreed action. The exact target belongs in the incident process, but the metric should be visible to the security owner.
Simulation report-to-click ratio
A report-to-click ratio shows whether staff are choosing the safer action when a simulation arrives. Use it with the cohort, channel, scenario and time window. Do not compare a mobile SMS scenario with a desktop email scenario as if they were identical tests.
Remediation completion
Track whether assigned learning or coaching is completed, then repeat a comparable exercise. Completion is an activity metric; the change in report, click and repeat behaviour is the outcome.
A 30-day implementation plan
Days 1–7: design the reporting contract
Name the report button or mailbox, the triage owner, the severity rules, the reporter feedback and the escalation route. Decide which data may be stored and for how long. Test the process with a benign internal message before sending a simulation.
Days 8–14: baseline the audience
Assign a short security awareness training lesson explaining how to report, what not to do with a suspicious message and what happens after a report. Group the audience by role, client, mail environment and manager.
Days 15–21: run one controlled exercise
Use a safe simulation that does not collect real credentials. Measure report rate, click rate, report-to-triage time and the quality of the analyst handoff. Give the reporter immediate, constructive feedback.
Days 22–30: join the data and fix the queue
Use human risk reporting to show which cohorts need follow-up. Review false positives, repeat reporters, repeat clickers, overdue remediation and confirmed threats. Fix the reporting route or triage ownership before increasing campaign volume.
Questions to ask in a vendor demo
- Can a user report an email in Outlook, mobile mail and the organisation’s other supported clients?
- What exact evidence is retained with a report?
- Can the analyst find other recipients of the same message or URL?
- How are simulated messages separated from real threats?
- Can the reporter receive a verdict or acknowledgement automatically?
- What happens when a report is a false positive?
- Can the system show repeat reporters and repeat clickers separately?
- Which integrations remove, quarantine or block a confirmed threat?
- Can an MSP separate client data and brand the learner experience?
- What can be exported for incident records, governance and client reporting?
- Who owns the queue outside business hours?
- What happens to reported email when the contract ends?
What to avoid
Buying a report button without an owner
A report route without a triage owner creates a backlog and teaches staff that reporting disappears. Assign the owner before rollout.
Treating every report as a failure
A user who reports a legitimate message has demonstrated the desired behaviour. Use the result to improve examples and feedback, not to shame the reporter.
Mixing live incidents and simulations
The security team needs to know whether a message was a controlled exercise or a real threat. Keep the data connected for human-risk analysis but separate for incident response.
Reporting only clicks
Clicks show one part of a simulation. Add reports, report-to-triage time, confirmed threats, repeat behaviour and remediation completion.
FAQ
What is phishing report analysis?
Phishing report analysis is the process of collecting a user’s suspicious-message report, preserving enough evidence to investigate it, deciding whether it is malicious, finding related recipients or messages, taking the right response action and feeding a useful result back to the reporter.
Is a phishing report button the same as a phishing simulation platform?
No. A report button captures suspected real messages. A simulation platform sends controlled exercises and measures behaviour. Some vendors combine both, but the workflows and owners still need to be separated.
Which platform is best for an MSP?
Cyber Aware is the best starting point for an MSP that needs branded training, phishing practice and human-risk reporting across client programmes. If the MSP is operating a client’s Microsoft 365 security stack, Microsoft Defender may remain the live-email response layer.
Which platform is best for Microsoft 365?
Microsoft Defender for Office 365 is the natural first evaluation when Microsoft 365 is already the organisation’s email-security stack because its user-reported message workflow sits inside Defender. Add a dedicated awareness platform if training, simulations or MSP branding require more depth.
Should staff be punished for false-positive reports?
No. False-positive reports consume analyst time, but they also show that the reporting behaviour is working. Improve the examples, the report guidance and the feedback loop; reserve intervention for repeated unsafe interaction with real or simulated threats.
How often should a team run phishing exercises?
Use a cadence that matches the organisation’s risk, workforce changes and incident experience. Vary the channel and scenario, avoid predictable repetition and use the result to assign targeted follow-up.
Final verdict
Choose the platform around the response path, not the prettiest campaign dashboard. Cyber Aware leads for MSP-branded human-risk programmes, Microsoft Defender leads for Microsoft 365 email operations, KnowBe4 leads for awareness-owned reporting with PhishER, Proofpoint leads for existing Proofpoint estates and Cofense leads for phishing detection and behavioural analysis. In every case, the winning implementation is the one that gets a report to an owner, a verdict back to the reporter and a measurable action into the next campaign.
Sources
- Cyber Aware phishing, Cyber Aware’s phishing simulation and awareness platform page, accessed August 2026.
- Cyber Aware human risk reporting, Cyber Aware’s human-risk reporting page, accessed August 2026.
- Tune anti-phishing protection, Microsoft Learn documentation on the Outlook Report button and user-reported messages, accessed August 2026.
- Automatic user notifications for user-reported phishing, Microsoft Learn documentation on feedback and automated investigation for user-reported phishing, accessed August 2026.
- Phish Alert Button for Microsoft 365, KnowBe4 documentation, accessed August 2026.
- PhishER email storage and processing, KnowBe4 documentation, accessed August 2026.
- Proofpoint product processing operations, Proofpoint documentation describing PhishAlarm and PhishAlarm Analyzer, accessed August 2026.
- Cofense Master Software and Services Agreement, Cofense service documentation describing PhishMe, Cofense Reporter and phishing analysis reports, accessed August 2026.