HEAD TO HEAD

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

THE SHORT ANSWER

On our published weights Conducttr scores 6.75 and TryHackMe 5.95. Conducttr scores higher on scenario realism, executive and board focus, customisation and pricing clarity; TryHackMe scores higher on exercise delivery effort, measurement and after-action reporting and regulatory evidence.

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 TryHackMe score on each criterion?

Conducttr and TryHackMe: crisis readiness score (editorial assessment, 0 to 10)
Criterion	Weight	Conducttr	TryHackMe	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	Built from industry, attack vector and tech stack, with injects the team can edit or re-prompt; adaptation to each decision is not described. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026	Conducttr
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	Aimed at managers, practitioners and security leaders; the boardroom is not the focus. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026	Conducttr
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	The vendor states a 10-minute average launch, with unlimited exercises and participants. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026	TryHackMe
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	"Audit-ready reports" with performance insights. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026	TryHackMe
Regulatory evidence	10%	No framework or regulatory mapping of results is described on the pages reviewed. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Scenarios align to NIST and ISO 27035. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026	TryHackMe
Customisation	10%	Full authoring control in the Scenario Editor, with a template library in Conducttr Worlds. Source: Conducttr homepage · Read 27 Sep 2026	Industry, attack vector and stack inputs, Co-Create, editable injects and upload of the team's own IR playbooks. Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · 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	Individual plans are published; business plans with tabletop exercises go through sales. Source: TryHackMe pricing · Read 27 Sep 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
Scenarios generated from industry, attack vector and tech stack; teams can upload their own IR playbooks and co-create.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026
Adapt: Partial
Facilitators can edit injects or re-prompt; branching on each player decision is not described.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026
Seats: Partial
Aimed at managers, practitioners and security leaders rather than the boardroom.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026
Run: Not described
Who facilitates a session is not described; the vendor states a 10-minute average launch.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026
Report: Documented
"Audit-ready reports" with performance insights.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 2026
Map: Documented
Scenarios align to NIST and ISO 27035.
Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · 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 TryHackMe documents 3 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

TryHackMe

Packaging: Part of TryHackMe for business; business pricing through sales.

Not published Individual plans are priced publicly; business plans, which include tabletop exercises, are not.

Source: TryHackMe pricing · Read 27 Sep 2026

Which frameworks do they map results to?

Conducttr

None named on the pages reviewed

TryHackMe

NIST
ISO 27035

Source: TryHackMe: tabletop exercises · Read 27 Sep 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 TryHackMe if

Customisation: 9 / 10, Industry, attack vector and stack inputs, Co-Create, editable injects and upload of the team's own IR playbooks.
Exercise delivery effort: 8 / 10, The vendor states a 10-minute average launch, with unlimited exercises and participants.
Fast, security-team tabletops from a large training platform

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

Frequently asked questions

Is Conducttr or TryHackMe better for executive crisis exercises?

Conducttr scores higher on executive and board focus (7 against 4 out of 10). Read each profile for the detail.

Which is easier to run, Conducttr or TryHackMe?

TryHackMe 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 TryHackMe 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. TryHackMe does not publish a price for its exercise product.