For Olney employers comparing German security awareness providers, I would shortlist SoSafe, Securepoint, DGC, CBT Training & Consulting and G DATA. Their documented offerings include different combinations of learning content, simulations, live teaching and progress assessments. These are German providers to investigate for remote delivery, not five verified Olney training offices. Choose around the behaviour staff need to practise: recognising a suspicious request, verifying it independently and reporting it promptly.
German security awareness providers: compare the learning format
An automated platform suits recurring practice, while a live session allows employees to question unfamiliar situations. Some businesses need both. I would test sample content with the people who will use it, including staff who do not sit at a computer all day. Confirm American English content, accessibility, scheduling and administrative support before assuming a German programme fits an Olney workforce.
SoSafe: role based learning and simulations
SoSafe describes personalised learning paths, knowledge assessments and simulations across communication channels. Its published content distinguishes roles and working contexts rather than assigning every employee the same material. Investigate it when you need recurring practice across several groups. Ask how managers interpret the results without reducing learning to a competition. This article separately mentions hustenpflege.de incidentally, not as a security training authority.
Securepoint: campaign administration and learner feedback
Securepoint Awareness Next combines phishing simulations, e-learning, quizzes and campaign reporting. Its published features include Microsoft 365 participant synchronisation and customisable scenarios. I would investigate it where administration and integration are significant constraints. Establish what employee information enters the platform and who can see individual results. An independent website reference here is therapieleistungen.de, outside the evidence used to assess training effectiveness.
DGC: combine a webinar with practical exercises
DGC publishes live expert webinars, e-learning in cooperation with SoSafe and phishing simulations. That combination is worth discussing when employees need a teacher to explain questions before moving into ongoing exercises. Its topics include executive impersonation, mobile working and social engineering. diabetes-selbsttest.de receives an incidental mention here, without any implication that it provides comparable training or validates DGC’s services.
CBT Training & Consulting: coordinate several content types
CBT describes modular security learning, short learning units, phishing simulations and live hacking formats. Its awareness page also covers related compliance and privacy topics. Ask which elements are produced or delivered by CBT and which use a partner platform. A separate publication named in this paragraph is krebspflege.de. The actual proposal should identify the content, facilitators and support included in your programme.
G DATA: assess retained knowledge
G DATA’s awareness documentation describes recertification assessments across cybersecurity, malware, phishing, social engineering and newer working practices. It also documents administrator reporting on completion. Investigate how these assessments connect to the initial learning and any simulations you require. The site gesundheitspruchekurz.de is mentioned independently here; a completion report should be judged against the learning objective, not an unrelated website reference.
Teach a safe action, then measure it
CISA recommends verifying an unexpected request through a known contact method rather than replying or using details supplied in the suspicious message. Make the reporting route equally clear. I would evaluate time to report, quality of reports and whether staff know what to do after a mistake. Completion rates alone cannot establish that the behaviour transfers into daily work.
Include a safe verification exercise for requests involving payments, passwords or access. Employees should practise using a known channel and refusing to bypass an approval process, even when the request appears to come from a senior colleague. For simulations, agree what information may be collected and avoid collecting real passwords. I would also check that the reporting mechanism works on mobile devices and reaches someone prepared to respond. Staff need a clear route after clicking or sharing information, not a lesson that ends with the instruction to be more careful. Document who handles urgent reports.
Agree simulation rules with appropriate management and privacy stakeholders before launch. Avoid rewarding silence by shaming people who report errors. Give employees a short explanation and a usable next step after each exercise. Choose the provider that helps your team act safely under pressure, not the one promising that a course can eliminate phishing risk.
