TL;DR: Any reputable SAT platform can satisfy the compliance training requirement when paired with Delve. The real question is whether you want training that just checks the box or training that actually reduces human risk. Here's how Kinds Security works alongside Delve — and why the difference matters beyond the audit.

If you're using Delve for compliance automation, you already know how it works: AI agents connect to your tools, pull evidence, and organize it for audit. Security awareness training is one of the controls those agents need to document — and virtually any SAT platform with completion records and a web-accessible dashboard will give Delve what it needs to satisfy that requirement.

So this isn't an article about whether Kinds Security is the only SAT that works with Delve. It isn't. KnowBe4, Proofpoint, Arctic Wolf, Huntress, and others can all produce completion records that Delve's agents can collect. That's table stakes.

This is an article about what happens after you've checked the compliance box — and why the training you choose matters for reasons auditors don't strictly require but enterprise buyers increasingly notice.

What Auditors Actually Require

Let's be straightforward about what compliance frameworks demand for security awareness training, because there's a lot of marketing noise in this space (including, admittedly, from SAT vendors like us).

Across SOC 2, HIPAA, ISO 27001, PCI-DSS, and CMMC, the core requirements are generally:

• A policy stating that security awareness training is required

• Evidence that employees receive training

• Completion records showing periodic cadence

• Content that is appropriate to organizational risk

You can satisfy these requirements with a well-run generic training program — annual videos, quizzes, completion certificates, and phishing simulations. If your training happens, is documented, and occurs on a reasonable schedule, most auditors will check the box.

Kinds satisfies all of these baseline requirements. So does KnowBe4. So does Proofpoint. That's not the differentiator.

Where Training Choice Actually Matters

The audit checkbox and actual security posture are two different things. Here's where they diverge — and where your choice of SAT platform starts to matter beyond compliance.

The behavior gap. Most organizations see minimal behavior change from generic training. Employees pass quizzes and continue clicking phishing emails at similar rates. The training record looks clean. The human risk hasn't moved. If your goal is purely "pass the audit," this is fine. If your goal is to actually reduce the likelihood of a breach, it's not.

The enterprise buyer gap. Increasingly, enterprise security reviews go beyond asking "do you have training?" They ask what kind, how it's tailored, and whether you can show improvement over time. Your Delve trust report documents what your tools produce. Richer training data tells a more compelling story to prospects doing due diligence — not because it's required, but because it signals maturity.

The "appropriate to role" gap. ISO 27001 requires awareness training "appropriate to role." SOC 2 focuses on training being provided and documented. You can satisfy both with general training plus supplemental role-based modules. But there's a spectrum between "technically appropriate" and "genuinely relevant to the threats someone actually faces." Where you land on that spectrum affects whether training changes behavior or just fills a calendar slot.

How Kinds Security Approaches This

Kinds doesn't just deliver training — it generates a unique interactive experience for each employee based on their name, job title, department, industry, and threat profile. Here's what that means concretely:

Role-specific scenarios. A CFO trains on wire fraud and deepfake impersonation calls. A developer works through dependency poisoning. An HR manager practices spotting weaponized resumes. This isn't a compliance requirement — it's a security posture decision. Generic training covers the audit. Role-specific training covers the actual risk.

Interactive conversation, not passive video. Kinds workshops are two-way interactions that adapt based on responses, not 45-minute videos with a quiz at the end. They consistently complete in under 7 minutes. Shorter sessions drive higher completion rates, which means fewer gaps in the training records Delve collects — but more importantly, interactive formats produce stronger knowledge retention than passive viewing.

Adaptive difficulty. Employees who demonstrate mastery progress to more sophisticated scenarios. Those who struggle get additional practice on specific concepts. This progressive approach is documented in each learner's training record. It's not something auditors require — but it's evidence of a program that improves over time, which is increasingly what mature security programs look like.

Structured data beyond completion certificates. Every Kinds workshop generates data on response accuracy, comprehension patterns, and topic-specific performance — not just pass/fail timestamps. When Delve's agents collect this evidence, they're pulling richer documentation. Does this change your audit outcome? In most cases, no. Does it strengthen your trust report and security review posture? Meaningfully, yes.

The Practical Workflow

Here's what running Kinds alongside Delve looks like day-to-day:

Setup: Connect Kinds to your employee directory. Training is automatically assigned based on roles and departments. Point Delve's agents at your Kinds dashboard for evidence collection. No formal integration or partnership required — Delve's browser-based agents pull from web-accessible tools.

Monthly training: Kinds delivers personalized workshops on a managed cadence. Each completion generates structured records: who trained, what content they received, how they performed, and when they finished.

Evidence collection: Delve's agents capture training records from Kinds the same way they'd capture from any web-based SAT platform — through automated screenshot collection and data pulling. The difference is in what those records contain, not in how they're collected.

Audit and security reviews: Training records are organized by framework control. The baseline audit requirement is met by completion documentation. The additional value — role-specific content mapping, effectiveness metrics, adaptive progression — shows up when enterprise buyers dig deeper into your security program maturity.

Being Honest About the Tradeoffs

Kinds is a newer platform. KnowBe4 has been around since 2010 and has massive brand recognition. Some auditors and enterprise reviewers will recognize KnowBe4 on sight. For compliance purposes, what matters is that training happened and is documented — not which vendor provided it. But brand familiarity can reduce friction in some security reviews.

Kinds is also built primarily for MSPs managing multiple client organizations. If you're a single startup running your own program, the platform works — but some features are optimized for the multi-tenant managed services workflow.

Where Kinds has a genuine edge is in training that people actually engage with — personalized, brief, and interactive. If your priority is a compliance checkbox with minimal effort, a legacy platform will do the job. If your priority is training that reduces the probability of someone on your team falling for a real attack, the personalization and adaptive difficulty matter.

The Bottom Line

Any competent SAT platform will satisfy your compliance training requirement when paired with Delve. The evidence collection workflow is straightforward regardless of vendor.

The question worth asking isn't "which SAT integrates with Delve?" — they all functionally do. The question is: do you want training that exists for the audit, or training that exists for the security outcome?

Kinds Security is built for the second answer. If that's what you're optimizing for, it's worth evaluating.

See how Kinds Security approaches security awareness training. Learn more at www.kindssecurity.com