What are the best human risk reporting platforms for MSPs?

The eight platforms worth comparing are usecure, KnowBe4, CanIPhish, Phin Security, Hook Security, MetaCompliance, CybSafe and Living Security.

For MSPs wanting to report on human risk beyond security awareness activity, usecure combines Human Risk Management reporting with Human Risk Intelligence through uHealth. It connects training, phishing, breach, identity and access signals to show where human risk sits and what needs attention.

KnowBe4 offers extensive risk scoring and reporting across its security awareness and wider product suite. CanIPhish combines phishing, training, breach exposure and business-impact factors in employee risk scores.

Phin Security and Hook Security focus on making training and phishing reporting easier for MSPs to deliver, while MetaCompliance provides employee risk scoring and exposure-related capabilities.

CybSafe and Living Security offer more specialized human risk analytics, including behavioral trends, organizational context and executive reporting.

The right platform depends on whether an MSP needs better reporting for an existing awareness service or a broader view of human risk that supports prioritization and client decision-making.

For years, MSP security reports have focused on familiar metrics: training completion, phishing simulation results and policy acknowledgments.

These measurements matter. They demonstrate participation and reveal weaknesses in security awareness.

But they leave important questions unanswered.

Which identities represent the greatest combined exposure? Does a phishing failure matter more when the same person also has privileged access? Are exposed credentials associated with identities that have additional security weaknesses?

And at the next quarterly business review (QBR), can the MSP explain what deserves attention beyond the number of employees who completed training?

Human risk reporting platforms aim to answer some or all of these questions.

The difference lies in how much context they provide.

Why human risk reporting matters for MSPs

Human Risk Management covers activities such as security awareness training, phishing simulations, policy management and breached-credential monitoring.

Each generates useful data.

A training report shows participation and performance. A phishing report shows how employees respond to simulated attacks. Policy reporting records acknowledgments, while breach monitoring identifies known exposed information.

But these signals often sit in separate reports.

Activity doesn't always explain exposure

Consider two employees who both failed a phishing simulation.

One has a standard account, limited permissions and strong MFA.

The other works in finance, has access to sensitive payment information, uses weaker authentication and has credentials associated with a known breach.

A phishing report may record the same failure for both.

Their wider risk context, however, is different.

This is where Human Risk Intelligence becomes useful. It connects behavioral findings with Target Value, Hygiene and Access context to explain why certain weaknesses require greater attention.

MSPs need visibility across clients

An MSP managing dozens of customers needs to understand where its team should focus.

A report showing 95% training completion across every client might look encouraging. However, it doesn't explain which clients have significant identity weaknesses or whether particularly important accounts carry overlapping risks.

Reporting should help partners move from reviewing individual activities to understanding which clients, identities and issues require attention.

QBRs need a clearer story

Clients increasingly need understandable explanations of their security posture.

Rather than presenting several unrelated charts, MSPs should be able to explain:

• What has changed since the previous review.
• Which identities or groups require attention.
• Why particular findings matter.
• What actions have been taken or remain outstanding.
• Whether the available indicators show improvement.

The objective isn't to eliminate awareness reporting. It's to connect that information to decisions clients can understand.

What to look for in a human risk reporting platform

Not all platforms calculate human risk in the same way.

Some focus primarily on training and phishing behavior. Others incorporate breached credentials, identity configurations, access permissions or business impact.

Before comparing vendors, MSPs should evaluate six areas.

1. Risk signals and data sources

Does the platform measure training participation and phishing performance only, or does it also incorporate exposed credentials, authentication weaknesses, identity information and access-related context?

Check whether those signals come from built-in products, external integrations or manually entered information.

2. Identity-level and organizational risk scoring

Can administrators identify which identities require attention? Does the platform provide organizational or departmental trends?

Look for clear explanations of how scores are calculated, what influences them and what a higher or lower score means.

A numerical score isn't automatically a measured probability of compromise.

3. Context and prioritization

Does the platform explain why an identity is considered higher risk?

More importantly, does it consider the potential consequences of compromise, or treat every employee and every phishing failure in the same way?

Useful reporting connects the finding with an appropriate next action.

4. Multi-tenant MSP management

Can MSPs manage reporting across multiple customers without signing into each environment separately?

Check tenant separation, client-level permissions, portfolio visibility and how easily technicians can move from an overview into individual findings.

5. Client-ready reporting

Can the platform create reports suitable for QBRs, technical reviews and executive discussions?

Relevant features include trend comparisons, PDF exports, scheduled delivery, white labeling and customizable reporting periods.

6. Integrations and commercial fit

Does the platform connect to tools already used by the MSP, such as Microsoft 365, Google Workspace or PSA systems?

Also consider licensing requirements, minimum commitments, supported partner workflows and whether advanced reporting requires additional products.

8 human risk reporting platforms compared

1. usecure: Best for MSPs connecting reporting with Human Risk Intelligence

usecure Human Risk Intelligence

usecure is built for MSPs and organizations that want to understand the human side of cybersecurity, from program activity through to where risk sits around each identity.

The platform includes uLearn for security awareness training, uPhish for phishing simulations, uPolicy for policy management and uBreach for breached-credential monitoring.

These products generate data about employee participation, behavior and exposure.

Through its Report Hub, usecure brings Human Risk Management performance metrics together, helping organizations review training progress, phishing results, policy acknowledgments and wider program activity.

MSPs can generate performance reports for a chosen time period, download them as PDFs or Excel files, and schedule recurring reports to stakeholders at custom frequencies.

Where usecure stands out

The major difference is uHealth, usecure's Human Risk Intelligence layer.

uHealth combines data from Microsoft Entra ID or Google Workspace with awareness insights from the wider usecure platform, then gives each identity a Health Score across four pillars:

• Target Value: How attractive an identity is to attackers, based on role, visibility and influence within the organization.
• Awareness: How the person behaves from a training and threat-awareness perspective, including training completion and phishing simulation performance.
• Hygiene: How securely the account is maintained, including MFA adoption, password age and strength, and dormant or inactive accounts.
• Access: How far the identity's access extends, including privileged roles, administrative permissions and group memberships.

uHealth uses these connected signals to identify Toxic Combinations, where several weaknesses affecting the same identity become more significant together.

For example, an account with MFA disabled, a dormant status and elevated privileges is flagged as critical, even though each condition alone might look moderate.

The value is not simply another risk score.

It is understanding what contributes to that score, where exposure is concentrated and which actions deserve attention. uHealth surfaces recommended remediation tasks, and its Reports view tracks the company-level Health Score over a selected period.

Reporting for MSPs

usecure is designed for partners managing multiple client organizations.

Its multi-tenant platform, centralized administration and white-label capabilities support repeatable service delivery.

Report Hub makes it easier to prepare recurring Human Risk Management updates, while uHealth provides additional context for prioritization and client conversations.

For MSPs, this creates an opportunity to move from reporting only on completed activities to explaining where human risk sits and whether it is improving.

What to consider

uHealth's identity and access insights depend on a Microsoft Entra ID or Google Workspace connection and the data available through it.

MSPs should also distinguish between Report Hub's scheduled performance reports and uHealth's Human Risk Intelligence views when evaluating reporting requirements.

Organizations looking primarily for independent enterprise analytics across a large collection of third-party security systems should compare the integration scope of specialist platforms.

Best fit: MSPs wanting Human Risk Management reporting connected to identity, access and business context, with Human Risk Intelligence helping them prioritize attention across clients.

Explore Human Risk Intelligence

2. KnowBe4: Best for established MSP security awareness and risk reporting

KnowBe4

KnowBe4 provides security awareness training and human risk management capabilities, including phishing simulations, risk scoring and reporting.

Its partner and multi-account reporting features allow MSPs to review data across managed organizations.

Available reports include risk scores, phishing results, training status and comparisons between trained and untrained users.

KnowBe4 also provides customizable executive reports, allowing partners to select widgets for phishing, training and risk score trends.

Reports can be saved, printed and scheduled, and Risk Score Activity reports can be filtered and exported as CSV files.

Where KnowBe4 stands out

KnowBe4's reporting capabilities extend beyond basic campaign statistics.

Its SmartRisk Engine assigns dynamic risk scores to users, groups and organizations based on risky, secure and mitigating events.

Those events are grouped into seven security types, drawing on KnowBe4 products such as phishing and training, the Phish Alert Button, SecurityCoach and PasswordIQ, depending on what is deployed.

This can give organizations additional context about employee-related security behaviors.

For MSPs, KnowBe4's established multi-account reporting and executive report features are particularly relevant when security awareness is already a significant part of the managed service.

What to consider

KnowBe4's reporting capabilities depend on the subscription and products deployed.

Where a security type has no active product, the SmartRisk Engine applies a default risk value that assumes risky behavior, which can raise the overall score.

MSPs should confirm which signals are active within their chosen package, how the risk score is calculated and what information appears in partner-level reports.

Best fit: MSPs that need mature security awareness reporting, user and account risk scores, and executive reporting within the KnowBe4 ecosystem.

3. CanIPhish: Best for employee risk scoring with phishing, breach and business context

CanIPhish

CanIPhish provides security awareness training, phishing simulations, dark web monitoring and human risk reporting.

Its Human Risk dashboard calculates employee risk scores using multiple weighted factors rather than relying on a single campaign metric.

These factors are:

• Security IQ (35%), based on employee knowledge assessments.
• Phish Risk (35%), based on phishing simulation outcomes.
• Breach Exposure (15%), based on known breach findings, including whether a breach occurred in the past 12 months and whether it contained a password.
• Engagement (15%), based on employee participation and activity.

CanIPhish also applies a Business Impact modifier, which can lower or raise an employee's score based on the potential consequences of compromise.

Where CanIPhish stands out

Its transparent scoring methodology is a useful differentiator.

The platform documents how each factor is weighted and how business-impact classifications adjust the final score.

These classifications can be assigned through rules based on employee job titles or adjusted by administrators.

CanIPhish also provides scheduled reports for different audiences, including high-level campaign reports and supervisor snapshots.

Supervisor reports can include phishing interactions, training completion, breach exposure and calculated human risk scores.

This gives MSPs and their customers a practical way to review employee-level findings alongside broader program results.

What to consider

The business-impact modifier adds useful context, but MSPs should distinguish classifications based on job titles or administrator rules from directly measured access permissions.

They should also review multi-tenant administration, reporting permissions and which risk signals are included within the subscription.

Best fit: MSPs wanting phishing and training management with a transparent human risk scoring model that incorporates breach exposure and business impact.

4. Phin Security: Best for automating MSP security awareness reporting

Phin Security

Phin Security is a security awareness training platform built specifically for MSPs.

It combines automated training campaigns, phishing simulations, user synchronization and reporting within a multi-tenant environment.

Its reporting features are designed to reduce the administration involved in producing recurring client updates.

MSPs can schedule PDF reports weekly or monthly for each client, bundle raw CSV data alongside them and download past reports from an archive.

Reports can include high-level statistics, trend data, a twelve-month historical user table and a Users to Watch list highlighting people who are behind on training or clicked a phishing test that month.

Where Phin stands out

Its primary strength is operational efficiency for MSPs.

Phin allows partners to manage training campaigns across multiple tenants from one dashboard.

Campaign automation and reporting are designed to work together, allowing MSPs to demonstrate participation and phishing outcomes without rebuilding reports manually.

Phin also integrates with Lifecycle Insights through ScalePad, as well as Gradient MSP and vCIO Toolbox, so training and phishing results can appear within wider business review reporting.

This is particularly useful when an MSP wants security awareness reporting to become part of an established QBR process.

What to consider

Phin's reporting is primarily focused on security awareness and phishing program performance.

Its help center also lists dark web monitoring, but buyers seeking combined identity, credential exposure and access-based intelligence should check how far those signals feed into reporting and whether additional tools are required.

Best fit: MSPs prioritizing automated awareness reporting, repeatable QBRs and efficient management of security training across multiple customers.

5. Hook Security: Best for understanding why employees fall for phishing

Hook Security reporting

Hook Security provides security awareness training and phishing simulations, with an MSP-focused reporting offering.

Its reports go beyond basic phishing click counts by examining the psychological triggers behind employee responses, such as authority, urgency and curiosity.

Hook Security uses this information to help organizations understand which tactics are proving most effective against employees.

Where Hook Security stands out

The platform emphasizes client-ready reporting with behavioral context.

Available reports range from weekly summaries and monthly executive reports to QBR packages, with individual and department-level risk scoring and trend analysis.

Hook Security also offers AI-assisted analysis, helping administrators identify patterns and recommendations based on training and simulation data.

For MSPs, reporting can be automatically generated, scheduled and white-labeled.

Its multi-tenant platform also supports portfolio-level visibility and individual client reporting, with user sync from Microsoft 365, Google Workspace and Okta.

This makes it useful for partners wanting to explain not only how often employees respond to simulated phishing, but which persuasion techniques are associated with those responses.

What to consider

Hook Security's reporting strength is phishing behavior and awareness performance.

Psychological insights can improve training decisions, but MSPs should distinguish this from platforms that also incorporate identity configuration, access permissions and breached-credential data into a broader risk assessment.

Best fit: MSPs looking for automated, client-ready security awareness reporting with deeper insight into phishing behavior and psychological triggers.

6. MetaCompliance: Best for employee risk scoring connected to awareness and compliance

MetaCompliance

MetaCompliance provides a human risk management platform combining security awareness training, phishing simulations, policy management and compliance-related capabilities.

Its Employee Risk Scores feature helps organizations identify individuals and groups displaying higher-risk behavior.

The scoring model draws on employee engagement with assigned content, course assessment performance and phishing simulation interactions, and administrators can customize how each factor is weighted.

Risk dashboards help administrators examine individual and organizational results, while industry comparisons provide additional context.

Where MetaCompliance stands out

Its Employee Risk Scores connect awareness participation with observed phishing behavior.

For example, employees who repeatedly fail phishing simulations or have outstanding learning assignments may receive different scores from colleagues who complete training and demonstrate more secure responses.

In February 2026, the company introduced Exposure Monitoring, which checks employee email addresses against verified breach data, assigns short breach-response learning to affected users and feeds the exposure signal into its human risk score.

It also added a Microsoft Power BI integration that pulls human risk data into external dashboards.

What to consider

MetaCompliance's documented scoring combines behavior and breach exposure. MSPs that also want identity configuration or access context in the score should check whether and how it is included.

It is also important to verify available partner administration, client separation and licensing arrangements.

Best fit: Organizations and service providers wanting employee risk scores, awareness reporting, benchmarking and breach exposure within a compliance-oriented security program.

7. CybSafe: Best for behavioral risk analytics with business-impact context

CybSafe

CybSafe is a human risk management platform focused on understanding and measuring security-related behavior.

Its reporting capabilities extend beyond conventional awareness participation metrics.

In 2026, CybSafe introduced its Behavior Risk Indicator (BRI), which gives every person a score from 0 to 1,000 reflecting how much security risk their behaviors expose the organization to, weighted by their role and access level.

Rather than assigning equal importance to every employee's actions, the scoring model weights behavior according to the risk it may contribute.

Where CybSafe stands out

CybSafe's Risk reports provide four views:

• Overview: Overall behavioral risk and trends.
• Behaviors: Which measured behaviors contribute most to risk.
• Groups: How departments or defined groups compare on the same scale.
• People: Which individuals contribute most to risk and what is influencing their scores.

The reports can also be filtered by risk category, such as data compromise.

The platform draws on activity from supported integrations alongside CybSafe's own phishing and learning data, and its AI assistant, CybSafe Signal, helps administrators explore results in plain language.

CybSafe offers partner arrangements for resellers, integrators and MSSPs, making it relevant to managed security services.

What to consider

CybSafe's BRI is a behavior-led risk model weighted by role and access. It should not be treated as interchangeable with other vendors' scoring methods.

MSPs should confirm the available multi-client reporting workflows, partner licensing and integrations needed to support their intended service.

Best fit: MSSPs and organizations wanting detailed behavioral risk analytics that account for the importance of different users, groups and security behaviors.

8. Living Security: Best for executive and board-level human risk reporting

Living Security

Living Security provides a human risk management platform that combines information from security tools to help organizations understand and report on workforce risk.

Its capabilities include the Human Risk Index, a score from 0 to 1,000 built from behavioral, identity and threat signals, along with employee and organizational reporting and risk-based actions.

The platform can use signals from sources such as email security, phishing simulations, identity providers, endpoint systems and HR-related context.

This allows organizations to examine individual risk alongside business roles, observed activity and privileged access.

Where Living Security stands out

Living Security places particular emphasis on reporting outcomes rather than activity alone.

Its reporting capabilities include scorecards for employees, managers, executives and business leaders.

Organizations can view risk across business units, examine changes over time and identify groups associated with particular risk patterns.

The platform also connects reporting with actions and accountability, allowing security teams to explain what has been addressed and which issues remain.

In May 2026, Living Security made AI-powered reporting generally available. Its Livvy AI engine recommends report structures, selects relevant reporting cards and generates executive summaries, with scheduled delivery to different audiences.

This is particularly relevant for organizations that need to communicate human risk to leadership and boards.

What to consider

Living Security offers broader enterprise-oriented human risk analytics.

MSPs serving smaller organizations should evaluate the implementation effort, data integration requirements, commercial arrangements and suitability of its reporting workflows for managing multiple independent customer environments.

Best fit: Larger organizations and security-focused service providers requiring detailed human risk analytics, executive scorecards and reporting across multiple security signals.

How to choose the right human risk reporting platform

The best platform depends on the reporting service an MSP wants to deliver.

• ‍For connected Human Risk Intelligence: usecure combines Human Risk Management reporting with uHealth, connecting Target Value, Awareness, Hygiene and Access around each identity.‍
• For established security awareness and risk score reporting: KnowBe4 provides multi-account management, executive reports and risk scoring across supported products.‍
• For phishing, breach and business-impact scoring: CanIPhish combines several employee risk factors within a documented scoring model.‍
• For automated MSP awareness reporting: Phin Security is a practical option for scheduled reports, historical trends and recurring client reviews.‍
• For phishing behavior and psychological insights: Hook Security provides tactic-based reporting and client-ready summaries.‍
• For awareness and compliance-oriented employee risk: MetaCompliance combines employee risk scoring, benchmarking and breach exposure.‍
• For behavior-led risk analytics: CybSafe provides detailed reporting across observed behaviors, people, groups and business impact.‍
• For executive and board-level analysis: Living Security offers multi-source risk scoring, scorecards and AI-generated executive reporting.

For MSPs, the most important consideration is how effectively the platform connects information to decisions.

A report may be visually impressive, but if the MSP cannot explain what the findings mean or which actions should follow, its practical value is limited.

Why usecure is a strong choice for MSPs

Security awareness reporting answers important questions.

Who completed training? Who clicked a simulated phishing email? Which employees acknowledged the latest policy?

But these metrics don't always explain where the biggest risk sits.

Consider a finance manager who completes every training course but has MFA disabled, a password that hasn't changed in years and elevated access to financial systems.

A completion report might show excellent participation. A phishing report might show no recent failures. Yet important security weaknesses could still exist around that identity.

Human Risk Intelligence brings these signals into context.

Move beyond isolated risk metrics

uHealth connects risk around each identity through Target Value, Awareness, Hygiene and Access.

Rather than treating awareness results, account weaknesses and access as unrelated, it helps MSPs identify where those factors overlap.

These combinations are important because the potential consequences of a weakness can change depending on the identity involved.

A missing MFA setting on a privileged identity may warrant different attention from the same gap on a standard account with limited access.

Make reporting more relevant to client decisions

The aim isn't simply to add another dashboard.

It is to help MSPs explain what the available data means.

Report Hub provides the Human Risk Management reporting foundation, with scheduled reports covering program activities and performance.

uHealth adds intelligence that helps teams understand which identities carry the greatest combined exposure, why those findings matter and what deserves attention first.

Together, they support more meaningful client conversations.

Instead of only reporting that phishing susceptibility changed, an MSP can also discuss whether the identities requiring the most attention have significant hygiene or access weaknesses.

Identify Toxic Combinations

Individual findings can appear manageable when reviewed separately.

For example:

• An account has MFA disabled.
• The account is dormant.
• It also holds elevated privileges.

Human Risk Intelligence connects these factors around the same identity and flags the combination as critical.

That helps MSPs understand why the combined exposure matters and prioritize appropriate remediation.

Support stronger QBRs

For MSPs managing multiple clients, the value of reporting lies in making information useful.

A client review can move beyond a summary of completed activities to discuss:

• Where human risk is concentrated.
• Which identities and issues need attention.
• What actions have been taken or remain outstanding.
• Whether human risk is improving over time.

This supports a clearer explanation of the MSP's ongoing service value.

And because usecure combines Human Risk Management activities with Human Risk Intelligence, partners can approach these conversations within one connected platform.

Explore Human Risk Intelligence for MSPs

Frequently asked questions

What is human risk reporting?

Human risk reporting measures and communicates information about employee-related cybersecurity risks.

Traditional reports typically include security awareness participation, phishing simulation results, policy acknowledgments and known credential exposure.

More advanced platforms may combine these findings with identity security, access permissions and business context to help organizations understand where risk is concentrated and what needs attention.

What is the best human risk reporting platform for MSPs?

The best platform depends on the depth of reporting required.

usecure is a strong choice for MSPs wanting Human Risk Intelligence alongside security awareness, phishing, policy and breach reporting.

KnowBe4 and CanIPhish offer risk scoring with different combinations of behavioral and exposure signals. Phin Security and Hook Security focus on efficient MSP awareness reporting, while CybSafe and Living Security provide more specialized analytics.

What should MSPs include in a human risk report?

An effective human risk report should explain what changed, which findings matter and what actions should follow.

Depending on available data, it may include:

• Organizational and identity-level risk trends.
• Training participation and phishing performance.
• Known credential exposure and relevant identity weaknesses.
• Identities or groups requiring attention.
• Completed and outstanding remediation actions.
• Recommendations for the next reporting period.

Reports should also explain the sources and limitations of the measurements being presented.

What is the difference between security awareness reporting and Human Risk Intelligence?

Security awareness reporting measures participation and behavior through activities such as training, phishing simulations and policy acknowledgments.

Human Risk Intelligence connects those signals with Target Value, Hygiene and Access context to explain where human risk sits and what deserves attention.

Security awareness reporting remains valuable. Human Risk Intelligence adds context to support prioritization.

Can MSPs report on human risk across multiple clients?

Yes. MSP-focused platforms may provide multi-tenant administration, client-level reports and centralized account oversight.

However, the depth of cross-client reporting varies.

Some products provide a portfolio overview, while others require technicians to review each client separately. MSPs should confirm tenant permissions, reporting exports and the ability to compare customer trends.

How is a human risk score calculated?

There is no single industry-wide formula.

Different platforms use different signals, scales and weightings.

Some rely primarily on training completion and phishing performance. Others incorporate breach exposure, observed security behaviors, account hygiene, access or business impact.

MSPs should understand the scoring methodology before using scores in client reports. A score from one vendor should not be directly compared with another vendor's score without understanding the underlying differences.

Can human risk reporting show whether security is improving?

Human risk reporting can show whether the indicators measured by a platform are improving or worsening over time.

However, the findings depend on the signals available, how the scores are calculated and whether data is sufficiently complete.

A better training score does not necessarily mean that identity exposure or access-related weaknesses have improved.

Connected reporting can provide more context, but no single score establishes that an organization is secure.

Does human risk reporting prove compliance?

No. Human risk reporting can provide useful records of security activities, employee participation and relevant risk-management processes.

These records may support compliance conversations and governance reviews.

However, reporting software does not establish that every applicable control is operating effectively or that an organization meets a particular framework or regulatory requirement.

How often should MSPs provide human risk reports to clients?

The right frequency depends on the managed service and customer requirements.

Monthly summaries can help track operational progress, while quarterly reports may be more suitable for broader discussions about risk trends, outstanding actions and future priorities.

Important findings should follow the appropriate response process rather than waiting for the next scheduled report.

Turn human risk reporting into Human Risk Intelligence

Training completion and phishing reports are valuable. But they are only part of the human risk picture.

MSPs also need to understand where exposure sits, which identities require attention and whether the available evidence shows improvement.

usecure connects security awareness, phishing simulations, policy management and breached-credential monitoring with Human Risk Intelligence.

Through uHealth, MSPs can identify Toxic Combinations, understand risk across Target Value, Awareness, Hygiene and Access, and prioritize the actions that matter.

See how usecure connects human risk reporting with Human Risk Intelligence.