HEAD TO HEAD

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

THE SHORT ANSWER

On our published weights iluminr scores 7.55 and Conducttr 6.75. Conducttr scores higher on customisation and pricing clarity; iluminr scores higher on executive and board focus, exercise delivery effort, measurement and after-action reporting and regulatory evidence; they tie on scenario realism.

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 iluminr score on each criterion?

Conducttr and iluminr: crisis readiness score (editorial assessment, 0 to 10)
Criterion	Weight	Conducttr	iluminr	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	Real-time injects and immersive media, with AI assessing each response against the organisation's own plans; a scenario that branches on each decision is not described. Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 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	Built for boards, executives, crisis teams and risk functions, with board-ready dashboards. Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	iluminr
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	Microsimulations of 3–5 minutes for one person and 30–45 minutes for a team make frequent practice practical. Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	iluminr
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	Behavioural evidence (decision velocity, confidence, alignment) and benchmarking by department, region and role. Source: iluminr blog: continuous capability intelligence (18 August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026	iluminr
Regulatory evidence	10%	No framework or regulatory mapping of results is described on the pages reviewed. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Nine named frameworks on the homepage, including DORA, APRA CPS 230, ISO 22301 and FFIEC, plus automated board-ready regulatory reports citing DORA, NIS2, CER and APRA CPS 230. Source: iluminr press release: continuous capability intelligence (PRWeb, 25 August 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026	iluminr
Customisation	10%	Full authoring control in the Scenario Editor, with a template library in Conducttr Worlds. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	The AI Context Engine draws on the organisation's continuity and GRC data; authoring tools are not described in detail. Source: iluminr blog: continuous capability intelligence (18 August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 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 on the pricing page. Source: iluminr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026	Conducttr
Total	100%			iluminr

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
The AI Context Engine draws on business continuity and GRC data during scenarios (August 2026 update).
Source: iluminr blog: continuous capability intelligence (18 August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026
Adapt: Partial
Real-time injects and immersive media; AI assesses each response against the organisation's own plans. Branching on each decision is not described.
Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Seats: Documented
Built for boards, executives, crisis teams and risk functions; single-player microsimulations and team exercises.
Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026
Run: Partial
Live QR polling supports in-room sessions; who facilitates a tabletop is not described on the pages reviewed.
Source: iluminr blog: continuous capability intelligence (18 August 2026) · Read 27 Sep 2026
Report: Documented
Board-ready dashboards and regulatory reports, benchmarking by department, region and role, and behavioural evidence such as decision velocity, confidence, alignment and blind spots.
Source: iluminr press release: continuous capability intelligence (PRWeb, 25 August 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026
Map: Documented
Evidence mapped to DORA, ISO 22301, APRA CPS 230, FCA/PRA, NIST CSF, UK Operational Resilience, ISO 27001, FFIEC and OSFI E-21, with automated regulatory reporting.
Source: iluminr 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.

Conducttr documents 2 of 6 stages and iluminr documents 4 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

iluminr

Packaging: A resilience exercising platform with several modules; pricing through sales.

Not published iluminr's pricing page publishes no prices.

Source: iluminr pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026

Which frameworks do they map results to?

Conducttr

None named on the pages reviewed

iluminr

DORA
ISO 22301
APRA CPS 230
FCA/PRA
NIST CSF
UK Operational Resilience
ISO 27001
FFIEC
OSFI E-21
NIS2
CER

Source: iluminr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026

Source: iluminr press release: continuous capability intelligence (PRWeb, 25 August 2026) · Read 11 Oct 2026

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 iluminr if

Regulatory evidence: 10 / 10, Nine named frameworks on the homepage, including DORA, APRA CPS 230, ISO 22301 and FFIEC, plus automated board-ready regulatory reports citing DORA, NIS2, CER and APRA CPS 230.
Executive and board focus: 9 / 10, Built for boards, executives, crisis teams and risk functions, with board-ready dashboards.
Board-level evidence for regulated firms

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

Frequently asked questions

Is Conducttr or iluminr better for executive crisis exercises?

iluminr scores higher on executive and board focus (9 against 7 out of 10). Read each profile for the detail.

Which is easier to run, Conducttr or iluminr?

iluminr scores higher on delivery effort, where a higher score means less effort, (8 against 5 out of 10). Read each profile for the detail.

Do Conducttr and iluminr 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. iluminr does not publish a price for its exercise product.