RiskSense vs usecure
Why curate templates when you can skip the library?
usecure built a tidy four-module suite, but the phishing side still leans on a template library you have to curate, and the coaching after a click is a generic course assignment. RiskSense was built to delete that work, not repackage it.
In one line
RiskSense gives you phishing that's unique every time, localised to every market, with 1-on-1 coaching that's specific to the click — and the policies, training and reporting come along for the ride.
- AI-generated phish, every one different
- Native localisation across NZ, AU, UK and US
- Personalised post-click coaching from Glitch
Feature comparison
| Feature | RiskSense | usecure |
|---|---|---|
| Phishing content | AI-generated, unique per phish | Template library, curated |
| Localisation by market | Native NZ/AU/UK/US/more | UK-strong, others templated |
| Setup time | ~60 seconds (OAuth) | Multi-step, hours typical |
| Post-click coaching | 1-on-1 with Glitch, personalised | Assigned training module |
| Free training tier | ||
| Spear phishing (auto) | ||
| No-repetition phishing | ||
| Policy management | ||
| Training library | ||
| MSP partner program | ||
| White-label |
Why teams move to RiskSense from usecure
- Tired of curating templates that go stale a month after launch
- Want phish that look like the real attacks staff are getting today
- Need localisation that's actually native, not a UK template with a regional flag swapped in
- Want coaching that lands because it's about the click, not a generic course
- Want a free training tier they can hand to clients without a sales call
- Want MSP economics that don't sting on small tenants
Bottom line
usecure is fine if you want a competent suite and you don't mind owning the template work. RiskSense is the better call if you'd rather your AI did the work and your staff actually noticed.
Try it on a single team. 60 seconds.
No credit card. Nothing for usecure to argue with.