HEAD TO HEAD

Conducttr vs Cytactic: which crisis simulation platform fits your team?

THE SHORT ANSWER

On our published weights Conducttr scores 6.75 and Cytactic 6.40. Conducttr scores higher on customisation and pricing clarity; Cytactic scores higher on exercise delivery effort, measurement and after-action reporting and regulatory evidence; they tie on scenario realism and executive and board focus.

By The Exercise Desk · Crisis Simulation Ranked · Published 2026-10-11

Desk research from public vendor pages, vendor announcements and standards documents read between 27 September and 13 October 2026. Editorial assessment; we did not run any exercise on these platforms.

How do Conducttr and Cytactic score on each criterion?

Conducttr and Cytactic: crisis readiness score (editorial assessment, 0 to 10)
Criterion	Weight	Conducttr	Cytactic	Higher score
Scenario realism	20%	Simulates the information environment around players (news, social media and messaging) with role-specific content; adaptation depends on the facilitator. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Exercises run in a Simulation Mode where attacker emails, ransom notes, breaking news and system data appear automatically, and the generator builds scenarios from the organisation's profile and data; a scenario that branches on each decision is not described. Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026	Tie
Executive and board focus	20%	Crisis-team exercising at any scale, from one team to 1,000+, but general crisis software rather than built around a cyber board. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Generated exercises include stakeholder discussions, and the platform has crisis communication and legal disclosure agents; an exercise format built for the board is not described on the pages reviewed. Source: Cytactic: platform · Read 13 Oct 2026	Tie
Exercise delivery effort	15%	You design the exercise in the Scenario Editor and facilitate it yourself; LISA drafts the events list. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Five ready-made simulations plus an AI generator that drafts the scenario, injects, decision points and moderator guidance; a one-sentence edit updates every step. A moderator still runs the session. Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026	Cytactic
Measurement and after-action reporting	15%	Real-time analytics and central reporting; quantitative behavioural assessment is the paid Assessment Toolkit. Source: Conducttr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026	Post-simulation reports "turn insights into action" and readiness assessments are available; what is measured is not described in detail. Source: Cytactic: platform · Read 13 Oct 2026	Cytactic
Regulatory evidence	10%	No framework or regulatory mapping of results is described on the pages reviewed. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Regulator-ready records are a stated platform pillar and a Legal Disclosures AI Agent is part of the platform; mapping of results to named frameworks is not described on the pages reviewed. Source: Cytactic homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026	Cytactic
Customisation	10%	Full authoring control in the Scenario Editor, with a template library in Conducttr Worlds. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Scenarios are generated from the organisation's own profile and data, edited in plain language, alongside a Playbook Builder. Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026	Conducttr
Pricing clarity	10%	Four annual licences published, £11,950 to £25,725 a year, plus the Assessment Toolkit from £4,536. Source: Conducttr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026	No price published; the route in is a demo. Source: Cytactic homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026	Conducttr
Total	100%			Conducttr

Which stages of an exercise does each cover?

Build: Documented
You author the exercise in the Scenario Editor; LISA, a "text-to-MEL chatbot", drafts the master events list.
Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Adapt: Partial
Role-specific content changes under facilitator control; automatic branching on decisions is not described.
Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Seats: Documented
Runs from one team to more than 1,000 simultaneous teams, virtual, in person or hybrid.
Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Run: Partial
The organisation's own facilitator runs the exercise with the platform's tools.
Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Report: Partial
Real-time analytics and central reporting; quantitative behavioural assessment is the paid Assessment Toolkit.
Source: Conducttr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026
Map: Not described
No framework or regulatory mapping of results is described on the pages reviewed.
Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026

A solid segment means the vendor's own pages describe that stage. It shows coverage, not quality; the scores judge quality.

Build: Documented
Five production-ready simulations plus an AI engine that builds new ones from the organisation's profile and data.
Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026
Adapt: Partial
Attacker emails, ransom notes, breaking news and system data appear automatically in Simulation Mode; branching on each decision is not described.
Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026
Seats: Partial
Generated exercises include stakeholder discussions; formats built for executives or the board are not described on the pages reviewed.
Source: Cytactic: platform · Read 13 Oct 2026
Run: Partial
Moderator guidance is generated; the session is moderated by the organisation.
Source: Cytactic blog: the next generation of cyber tabletops (17 July 2026) · Read 13 Oct 2026
Report: Partial
Post-simulation reports; what is measured is not described in detail.
Source: Cytactic: platform · Read 13 Oct 2026
Map: Partial
Regulator-ready records are a stated pillar; named framework mapping is not described.
Source: Cytactic homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026

A solid segment means the vendor's own pages describe that stage. It shows coverage, not quality; the scores judge quality.

Conducttr documents 2 of 6 stages and Cytactic documents 1 of 6.

What do they cost?

Conducttr

Packaging: Annual team licences, published by tier.

Four annual team licences: Raven £11,950, Hawk £16,465, Osprey £21,000 and Eagle £25,725 a year, each for up to 40 participants per session, in GBP excluding tax. Assessment Toolkit from £4,536 a year. Larger exercises and Conducttr Local are priced on request.

Source: Conducttr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026

Cytactic

Packaging: Part of the Cytactic incident response management platform, alongside playbooks, decision support, communication and disclosure agents; access through a demo.

Not published Cytactic publishes no prices and has no pricing page in its navigation; the route in is a demo.

Source: Cytactic homepage · Read 13 Oct 2026

Which frameworks do they map results to?

Conducttr

None named on the pages reviewed

Cytactic

None named on the pages reviewed

Which should you choose?

Choose Conducttr if

Customisation: 10 / 10, Full authoring control in the Scenario Editor, with a template library in Conducttr Worlds.
Pricing clarity: 10 / 10, Four annual licences published, £11,950 to £25,725 a year, plus the Assessment Toolkit from £4,536.
Teams that design every inject themselves

Choose Cytactic if

Customisation: 8 / 10, Scenarios are generated from the organisation's own profile and data, edited in plain language, alongside a Playbook Builder.
Scenario realism: 7 / 10, Exercises run in a Simulation Mode where attacker emails, ransom notes, breaking news and system data appear automatically, and the generator builds scenarios from the organisation's profile and data; a scenario that branches on each decision is not described.
Simulations inside a cyber incident response hub

Conducttr profile Cytactic profile Alternatives to Conducttr Alternatives to Cytactic See them side by side

Frequently asked questions

Is Conducttr or Cytactic better for executive crisis exercises?

They tie on executive and board focus at 7 out of 10. Read each profile for the detail.

Which is easier to run, Conducttr or Cytactic?

Cytactic scores higher on delivery effort, where a higher score means less effort, (7 against 5 out of 10). Read each profile for the detail.

Do Conducttr and Cytactic publish prices?

Conducttr publishes a price: Four annual team licences: Raven £11,950, Hawk £16,465, Osprey £21,000 and Eagle £25,725 a year, each for up to 40 participants per session, in GBP excluding tax. Assessment Toolkit from £4,536 a year. Larger exercises and Conducttr Local are priced on request. Cytactic does not publish a price for its exercise product.