LMS comparison checklist: compare with evidence.

The downloadable CSV scorecard opens in a spreadsheet application and requires no email address. It contains twelve comparison criteria, suggested weights, a mandatory-gate field, a demonstration task, an evidence owner and blank fields for each supplier. Duplicate the supplier-specific columns or use one copy per supplier. Record the supplier, package, demonstration date and reviewer before adding scores. The weights are editable examples, not an industry benchmark or a recommendation to buy a particular LMS.

Keep a master copy of the criteria agreed by your buying group. Use the same version for every demonstration so suppliers answer comparable questions. The file has no embedded formulas: calculate each weighted result as weight multiplied by score divided by three, then add the results. Keep the supporting evidence beside the score. An unanswered requirement stays blank and carries the evidence status Unverified; it does not become a zero or a demonstrated failure.

Use the checklist once the team has defined its first audience and learning process. A requirements document states what the organisation needs. This comparison checklist records how each supplier demonstrated those needs and which questions remain unresolved. The LMS business case template covers the separate funding decision. After the buying group selects a supplier, a phased LMS rollout plan can carry the agreed scope into a pilot. Keeping those documents separate prevents an attractive demonstration from silently changing the learning scope or the approved budget.

Name one recurring learning process and the people who run it. A practical scope might be a role update that an administrator assigns, an employee completes on a phone, and a manager follows up. Specify who approves the source material and who can see the progress record. Describe the current difficulty using your own records, such as repeated audience reconciliation or missing ownership after a deadline. Avoid starting with a catalogue of features that nobody has agreed to use.

Include the Head of L&D or learning owner, a programme administrator, a learner representative and the managers who will act on the results. Invite IT, Security, Privacy and Procurement to review the questions they own. The learning owner coordinates the comparison but does not approve specialist requirements on their behalf. A company with 180 employees could compare one role group first; that is an illustrative scope, not a universal minimum or a forecast of implementation effort.

Write down the first audience, the type of content, the delivery devices, the expected administration tasks and the proposed decision date. Separate employee learning from customer training, onboarding coordination and any wider HR-system replacement. If those additional needs matter, give them their own requirements and owners. A supplier that fits the first programme may still leave another use case unresolved. The shortlist should reflect the scope you intend to purchase.

A mandatory gate is a requirement your organisation must resolve before purchase. It might concern an approved access method, required data handling, a specific content format or a learner accessibility need. Let the responsible owner define the gate and its acceptance evidence. Mark it Pass, Fail or Unverified independently of the numerical score. Do not use a high score for visual design or gamification to compensate for a failed mandatory condition.

Weights express the relative value of the remaining criteria to this programme. The example weights total 100: audience assignment 12, content work 10, assessment 8, reporting evidence 12, mobile use 12, accessibility review 10, integrations 8, permissions 6, administration effort 8, learner support 4, commercial scope 6 and exit arrangements 4. Change them before seeing supplier demonstrations. Document why a material change was made and apply it to every supplier.

If a criterion is irrelevant, remove it and redistribute its weight across the criteria that remain. Keep the applicable weights at 100 if you want a percentage-style result. A team that does not need formal assessments should not penalise a supplier for that omission. Conversely, if an assessment workflow is mandatory, its gate cannot disappear inside an average. Treat the suggested structure as a buyer-owned method rather than a certification of a supplier.

Prepare a short demonstration script using invented employee identities and non-confidential sample learning. Ask each supplier to show the same sequence: create or revise a module, assign it to the agreed audience, open it as a learner, complete the activity, inspect the progress record and change the audience. Record which steps the reviewer performed, which the supplier demonstrated and which were described without demonstration. A polished presentation is not equivalent to a completed task.

For audience assignment, change a sample employee role and ask what happens to current and future learning. For content work, revise a paragraph and ask how administrators identify the version learners received. For permissions, use a learner, a manager and an administrator account to inspect the records each can access. These are evaluation questions, not claims that every LMS implements the same model. Record limitations and configuration dependencies in the relevant row.

Give the supplier the agreed scope before the session. Allow clarification, but keep the core tasks unchanged. If a capability needs a separately priced connection, additional configuration or another product, record that condition beside the result. Ask for a written follow-up when the demonstration cannot establish an answer. Assign a reviewer and due date to that follow-up so an unresolved item does not quietly become accepted functionality.

Choose content that resembles the programme employees will use. Review whether learners can understand the instructions, find relevant context and return to unfinished learning. Ask the administrator to change the content and repeat the assignment. Keep the effort of writing, reviewing and maintaining the material in the comparison, even when a supplier offers AI-assisted creation. Your company remains responsible for approving the learning and checking its meaning.

CDC guidance distinguishes learning from applying that learning at work. Its public-health training context does not establish software purchasing criteria, but the distinction helps the buying group ask what its evidence should answer. Compare a completion record, a deliberately chosen learning check and a later workplace follow-up as separate observations. A certificate or dashboard alone cannot establish that the employee applies the learning correctly.^[1]

If the programme requires a formal assessment, demonstrate the pass rule, retry path, result and the responsible reviewer. If the purpose is discovery or practice, assess that experience on its own terms. Avoid turning every interactive activity into a test merely because scoring is available. The content owner should decide what evidence fits the objective, while the supplier shows how the selected workflow behaves and what the programme owner can inspect.

Use the devices and conditions that matter to the first audience. Open the sample module on a phone, navigate between sections, leave and return, and inspect feedback after an activity. Record the device and browser used, the task and the observed issue. A claim of mobile-first design needs a demonstration of the relevant learning journey. A screenshot of the opening screen does not show how a learner completes the module or handles an error.

W3C describes its Easy Checks as a preliminary accessibility review that covers only part of the problem. It warns that passing those checks can still leave substantial barriers. Use that scope honestly: inspect headings, text alternatives, keyboard access, visible focus, zoom and relevant media alternatives as an initial review, then ask the appropriate specialists for the assessment your organisation needs. This checklist does not establish WCAG conformance.^[2]

Include a learner representative where practical and avoid collecting personal medical information in the supplier scorecard. Record the task barrier and the required support instead. Ask what evidence covers the supplied course player, your own content and any external content separately. A platform review cannot establish that every course your team uploads will remain accessible. Give accessibility questions an owner and a gate when the programme requires them.

Ask the administrator to answer a concrete question using the sample records: which assigned learners have completed the current module, which remain due, and who can inspect the result? Check the definitions and dates used in the output. Compare whether the report answers your question, what manual work remains and whether the relevant package includes it. Keep completion, satisfaction, assessment and workplace follow-up separate when they refer to different populations or purposes.

For each proposed connection, name the source system, the data required, its direction and its owner. Ask the supplier to demonstrate the relevant operation or provide scoped technical evidence. Record whether the capability is included, configured, dependent on another provider or unresolved. Do not treat an integration logo, generic API availability or a sample unrelated to your flow as proof that your exact connection is ready. IT should review the proposed dependency and support responsibility.

Measure administration effort through the demonstration tasks without claiming the result predicts a production rollout. Note preparation time, repeated manual steps, content maintenance and who resolves an exception. Ask the administrator to describe what would be required when the audience doubles or a course changes. The comparison can reveal work to investigate, while a pilot provides the evidence for your actual workload. Keep supplier setup fees and internal staff effort visible in the commercial review.

Use a four-point scale: 0 means a demonstrated failure to meet the agreed criterion; 1 means the task works with a material limitation; 2 means it meets the agreed task; 3 means it meets the task and a documented additional need. Define that additional need before demonstrations so a three does not reward decorative features. Leave the score blank when evidence is missing. Add the evidence reference, reviewer and date beside every score.

For a hypothetical criterion with weight 12 and score 2, the weighted result is 12 multiplied by 2 divided by 3, or 8 points. Calculate verified coverage by adding the weights of rows marked Verified, dividing by the total applicable weight and multiplying by 100. A supplier with verified evidence across only 80 of the 100 applicable weight points has 80% verified coverage. Report its earned points alongside that coverage and the remaining 20 unverified weight points. Do not divide by the verified weights and present the result as a complete comparison: that would hide unanswered questions.

Compare suppliers only after checking mandatory gates and evidence coverage. A higher provisional total with unresolved access or package questions may be less decision-ready than a lower total with complete evidence. Have the buying group review whether the weights still reflect the agreed scope. If they change, retain the original comparison, explain the reason and recalculate all suppliers. The arithmetic organises the discussion; accountable people choose the next action.

Ask for a written scope covering the audience, subscription basis, required features, connections, setup work, support and any limits that affect the programme. Record the quoted currency, term and verification date. This guide does not rank suppliers or publish competitor prices. Procurement and Finance should review the actual offer, while your internal owners estimate content preparation, configuration and ongoing administration. A lower subscription amount can still leave work outside the quoted scope.

Review how the organisation would retrieve its content and learner records when the agreement ends. Ask for the available formats, responsibilities, timing and any charges, with the appropriate internal data owners involved. Confirm the answers in the controlling documents rather than inferring them from a demonstration. The checklist records questions and evidence; it does not determine legal obligations or certify that the proposed processing meets your organisation’s requirements.

Finish with a pilot decision that names the selected audience, accountable owner, unresolved gates, required evidence and review date. The next action can be a scoped pilot, a further demonstration, a revised shortlist or retaining the current process. State what would cause the team to pause or stop. Revisit the comparison using observed learner and administration results before expanding beyond the first programme. Preserve the evidence record so the decision can be challenged later.

CapoFine Grow is a mobile-first LMS for company, product and role learning. It supports course and pathway creation, role-based assignment, interactive learning, progress tracking and formal assessments with pass scores, retries and certificates. Company owners approve the content and interpret the results. Confirm package-dependent reporting and connections against the specific rollout you are comparing.

Use the Grow overview to prepare the discussion and the relevant plans to check the proposed scope. Bring the same sample content, audience change and reporting question used with other suppliers. Ask the learning owner, administrator and specialist reviewers to record what they observed in their own comparison copy. Grow should answer the criteria you agreed, rather than change the criteria to fit a demonstration.