AI-powered Phishing Detection Systems: A Comparative Study

Phishing attacks remain one of the most persistent threats in cybersecurity, evolving in complexity and sophistication.Traditional detection mechanisms, often reliant on static rules and blacklists, struggle to keep pace with these dynamic threats.This research paper presents a comparative study of AI-powered phishing detection systems, examining the performance of various machine learning and deep learning models.Utilizing datasets containing real-world phishing and legitimate samples, models such as Decision Trees, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, Convolutional Neural Networks, and Long Short-Term Memory networks are evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and ROC-AUC scores.Our results demonstrate that deep learning approaches, particularly sequence-based models like LSTM, achieve superior performance by capturing intricate patterns in URLs and textual content.Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of feature engineering and data diversity in building resilient detection systems.By providing a comprehensive performance analysis, this study aims to assist researchers and cybersecurity practitioners in selecting appropriate AI models for phishing detection tasks.The findings also pave the way for future research into hybrid models and real-time, adaptive phishing defences.

Publication Details

Journal
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Published
2025-08-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.56726/irjmets82383
Primary Topic
Spam and Phishing Detection
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

AI-powered Phishing Detection Systems: A Comparative Study

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Spam and Phishing Detection
article

AI-powered Phishing Detection Systems: A Comparative Study

article en

Abstract

Phishing attacks remain one of the most persistent threats in cybersecurity, evolving in complexity and sophistication.Traditional detection mechanisms, often reliant on static rules and blacklists, struggle to keep pace with these dynamic threats.This research paper presents a comparative study of AI-powered phishing detection systems, examining the performance of various machine learning and deep learning models.Utilizing datasets containing real-world phishing and legitimate samples, models such as Decision Trees, Random Forests, Support Vector Machines, Convolutional Neural Networks, and Long Short-Term Memory networks are evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, and ROC-AUC scores.Our results demonstrate that deep learning approaches, particularly sequence-based models like LSTM, achieve superior performance by capturing intricate patterns in URLs and textual content.Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of feature engineering and data diversity in building resilient detection systems.By providing a comprehensive performance analysis, this study aims to assist researchers and cybersecurity practitioners in selecting appropriate AI models for phishing detection tasks.The findings also pave the way for future research into hybrid models and real-time, adaptive phishing defences.

International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Spam and Phishing Detection
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

AI-powered Phishing Detection Systems: A Comparative Study · International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS