한국어 
日本語 
English 
What should an LMS actually be compared on?
Last updated: 2026-07-14
All 60 evaluation items across 9 categories, published in full. Each item carries a priority, a verification method, an owning function, and a blank column for the LMS currently in use. TouchClass's own ratings are included — along with the three items TouchClass rated △.
across 9 categories
gaps decide the call
rated △ on itself
Compare with the same questions, not with feature lists
LMS comparisons break down because each vendor gets a different question. One is judged on a demo, another on price, a third on references. A comparison only holds if the same questions, the same verification methods and the same rating scale are applied to every candidate. The 60 items below are a standard question set, grouped into 9 categories that run from learning strategy all the way to contract termination.
This checklist does not start from the conclusion that TouchClass is the better product. Where the incumbent LMS already performs well, it performs well. What it does is ask the same questions about learner experience, admin workload, content production, data, security and AI/LXP extensibility. The "Current LMS" column is deliberately empty. Send the same table to every candidate and have them fill it in — that is the moment it becomes a comparison.
There is one scoring rule. Read the gaps in the P1 items, not the total score. The sum of 60 items is not used for the decision. What matters is where the × (not supported) and △ (constrained) marks cluster within the 32 P1 items.
This table belongs to the stage where proposals are already in hand and you are scoring them. If you are still writing the request, you need the table running the other way — how to write an LMS RFP — a 60-item requirements spec turns the same 60 items into what you demand of a candidate, and pins a requirement level (32 Must, 27 Should, 1 May), the evidence to attach, and the verification method to each one. The item numbers match, so an RFP response drops straight into the blank column here.
The 9 categories — what each one asks
-
Asks whether the training objective actually survives contact with the LMS structure: automated assignment of mandatory and compliance training, role- and department-based learning paths, separate learner cohorts, extension into knowledge sharing, and — the item most often skipped — whether one slice can be validated in a 4-week pilot without replacing the incumbent LMS. That last one is P1 because comparisons that presuppose full replacement rarely reach a conclusion. See items 1–6
Default pilot: 50–100 learners · 4 weeks · 1 training task · 1–2 KPIs -
This category decides whether people actually log in. Progress sync across Web/iOS/Android, whether the mobile app is native rather than a web view wrapper (push, offline storage, biometrics), branded standalone apps, push-based nudges, self-directed study tools, multilingual support, web accessibility (WCAG 2.2) and microlearning. Accessibility should be reviewed jointly by IT and ESG. See items 7–14
Accessibility baseline: W3C WCAG 2.2 -
The highest P1 density of any category. Admin workload scales with headcount, so a single manual step left in the loop is what ends up driving three-year cost. Learner registration (individual, CSV, invite link, SSO), group operations, per-course conditions, automatic completion judgement and certificate issuance, permission separation, QR attendance, real-time monitoring and the scope of onboarding support. See items 15–22
5 completion conditions: progress · study time · test score · survey · video playback -
Whether content can be built without code, adjusted responsively, auto-graded, drafted by AI from a document or URL, and turned from long video into short-form. Item 30 is the one to slow down on: on termination, in what format can the content we created be exported? Check the contract clause and the actual downloaded file, not the sales answer. See items 23–30
Don't audit the feature list — time one person building one piece of content -
Having zero P1 items here is deliberate. Social learning, gamification and AI recommendation are powerful, but leading with them while mandatory training, completion, permissions and security are still broken is technology-led procurement. This is also where TouchClass rates itself △ on item 35: interest-keyword curation is supported, but a structured role-and-skills graph requires separate design work. See items 31–38
Item 35, skills graph — TouchClass rating: △ -
Not "is there a stats screen" but "does it export in a form an auditor will accept". Non-login and non-completion reports, group comparison, short-form-to-course conversion, before/after pilot KPIs. Item 43 is a TouchClass △: keeping AI analysis separate from high-stakes HR decisions such as promotion, appraisal and compensation is not a product feature — it needs the customer's own policy, human review and audit structure. See items 39–45
Item 43, high-stakes HR separation — TouchClass rating: △ -
Every one of these eight items is P1. An LMS accumulates employee personal data alongside internal training material, so under data-processing rules the vendor itself becomes the object of review. Management-system certification (ISMS-P), international information security certification (ISO/IEC 27001), encryption, permission separation, SSO (SAML 2.0 / OAuth 2.0 / LDAP / MFA), audit logs, availability and leak prevention. Item 53 is a TouchClass △. See items 46–53
Item 53 — on iOS, complete screen-capture blocking is not claimed -
"Yes, we integrate" is not information. Ask for the field-mapping table against HRIS/ERP/CRM/groupware, whether the method is API, webhook or CSV, whether sync is real-time or a nightly batch, and whether integration cost and timeline are quoted separately from the licence. Concurrency is confirmed by a same-scale customer's test result, not by a spec sheet. See items 54–57
18,000 concurrent users load-tested · largest single customer: 39,000 learners -
All three are P1. Scope of implementation support (site setup, content migration, admin training, pilot operation), three-year TCO (licence, per-user charges, content subscription, integration, operational support), and termination terms (data export, content ownership, notice period). Any line item missing from the quote is a line item that gets invoiced later. See items 58–60
Published per-user pricing: KRW 5,500 / 5,000 / 4,000 per month (excl. VAT)
Android
languages
languages
load-tested
reference scale
financial-sector run
How the rating works
The "Current LMS" column is filled in by the evaluating organization. The "TouchClass" column is a baseline rating against currently confirmed functionality.
Send the same table to every candidate, have them rate on the same scale, and the comparison assembles itself.
Rating scale
| Symbol | Meaning | Score | How to read it |
|---|---|---|---|
| ◎ | Strength, or above the usual standard — worth verifying | 3 | Confirm it live in the demo |
| ○ | Supported at a normal level | 2 | Candidates rarely differ much here |
| △ | Partially supported — constraint; policy, contract or implementation check needed | 1 | Split out as a pre-adoption task |
| × | Not supported, or out of current scope | 0 | A × on a P1 item is an immediate risk |
Priority levels
| Priority | Meaning | Items | Role in the decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Must-have — operations do not hold without it | 32 | The decision ends here. Read only the × / △ spread across P1 |
| P2 | Important — drives operating quality and participation | 27 | Ranks candidates once P1 is satisfied |
| P3 | Bonus — nice to have | 1 | Not used for the selection decision |
Read the gaps in the P1 items, not the total score. The sequence: ① mark every P1 item where the current LMS is × or △. ② if a candidate scores ◎ or ○ on that item, treat it as a coverable gap. ③ if the candidate is also △, split it out as a pre-adoption task. ④ finally, separate "risk of staying on the current LMS" from "risk that a 4-week pilot can actually test".
The 60-item LMS comparison checklist
All 60 items across 9 categories, in full. Each carries a priority, a verification method, an owning function, a blank for the current LMS, and the TouchClass rating.
Copy the tables straight into an RFP requirements list, or download the CSV below.
Wide tables scroll horizontally. Column order: No. · Priority · Item · How to verify · Owner · Current LMS (blank) · TouchClass · Note
A. Learning strategy & outcome fit (1–6)
Does the training objective survive the LMS structure? 3 P1 items — automated mandatory training, role-based learning paths, and pilot viability.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P1 | Can mandatory, ethics/compliance and internal required training be assigned at course level with completion tracked automatically? | Register a required course, assign a cohort, demo the non-completer report | L&D | ○ | Supports automatic management of mandatory training and completion conditions | |
| 2 | P1 | Can courses be classified by role, department and function, and run as staged learning paths? | Build a sample departmental curriculum | L&D | ○ | Operated through course categories, groups, required courses and open courses | |
| 3 | P2 | Can employees, new hires, partners and campaign staff be run as separate learner cohorts? | Walk through a group / permission / course-assignment scenario | L&D · Business | ○ | Group-based permissions and course assignment supported | |
| 4 | P2 | Does training extend past completion tracking into knowledge sharing, case sharing and Q&A? | Demo boards, comments, attachments and private posts | L&D · Business | ◎ | Social learning built on TouchTogether | |
| 5 | P1 | Can one slice be validated in a 4-week pilot without replacing the incumbent LMS? | A 50–100 learner pilot brief with agreed KPIs | L&D · IT | ○ | Can start with no integrations, at small scale | |
| 6 | P2 | Can outcome metrics — participation, completion, admin workload, ticket volume — be agreed up front and then measured? | Sample before/after pilot reports | L&D · Leadership | ◎ | Verifiable against MAU, study time, activity and statistics reports |
B. Learner experience & accessibility (7–14)
Does anyone actually log in? 4 P1 items — cross-platform progress sync, native app, push nudges, web accessibility.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | P1 | Are Web, iOS and Android all supported, with learning progress synchronized across them? | Start on desktop, resume on mobile | L&D · IT | ◎ | Windows, Mac, iOS and Android with progress sync | |
| 8 | P1 | Is the mobile app more than a web view — can it use push, offline storage and biometrics? | App feature demo and a live push test | L&D · IT | ◎ | Native iOS and Android apps, plus a standalone app option | |
| 9 | P2 | Can a standalone branded app or a customized learning experience be delivered? | Check the app icon, splash, colors and store listing route | L&D · Brand | ◎ | Customer-branded standalone app and white-label | |
| 10 | P1 | Can deadlines, new courses and non-completion nudges be sent as app push or messages? | Test targeted push and scheduled send | L&D | ◎ | Push, notices, pop-ups and KakaoTalk-based nudges | |
| 11 | P2 | Are there self-directed study tools — search, bookmarks, notes, highlighting, TTS? | Inspect the learner app screens | L&D · Learner reps | ○ | Study tools, saved items, TTS and font-size control | |
| 12 | P2 | Is multilingual UI and content translation sufficient for global and partner training? | Korean / English / Japanese screens, plus an AI translation sample | L&D · Global | ◎ | UI in 5 languages; AI translation in 14 | |
| 13 | P1 | Can screen, content and mobile usability be verified against web accessibility standards? | WCAG 2.2 checklist, keyboard and screen-reader pass | IT · ESG | ○ | Responsive on mobile and web; formal accessibility certification should be verified separately | |
| 14 | P2 | Is there a microlearning / short-form experience that can be consumed in minutes? | 10–60 second short-form clips and the course conversion rate | L&D | ◎ | AI ShortClass with short-form analytics |
C. Admin operations & workload (15–22)
Highest P1 density — 6 of 8. Admin workload scales with headcount, so a single remaining manual step is what drives three-year cost.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | P1 | Can learners be enrolled individually, in bulk by CSV, via invite link and through SSO? | Register 10 sample users; upload a CSV | L&D · IT | ○ | Individual, bulk, invite and SSO registration supported | |
| 16 | P1 | Can groups be created by department, role, project or partner and reused for assignment, statistics and messaging? | Demo group creation and course assignment | L&D | ○ | Group management and group-comparison statistics | |
| 17 | P1 | Can required/optional status, enrolment window, progress thresholds and test/survey conditions be set per course? | Register one course, then change its conditions | L&D | ○ | Course metadata, content structure and learning settings | |
| 18 | P1 | Are completion conditions judged automatically, and are certificates issued? | Test progress, study time, score and survey conditions | L&D · Audit | ◎ | Five conditions judged automatically, with certificate issuance | |
| 19 | P1 | Can admin and sub-admin menu permissions be separated so operational responsibility can be divided? | Create a sub-admin account and inspect the per-role screens | L&D · IT | ○ | Sub-admin menu permissions can be designated | |
| 20 | P2 | Can QR attendance, manual credit and attendance cancellation be managed for offline sessions and events? | Run a sample QR attendance session | L&D · Business | ◎ | QR attendance check and status management | |
| 21 | P1 | Can live users, recent activity, enrolment logs and bulk-job status be seen from the admin console? | Demo the operations dashboard | L&D | ◎ | Real-time monitoring and a job queue view | |
| 22 | P2 | Are admin training, content migration, launch support and operational reviews available? | Confirm the onboarding and CSM support scope | L&D · Procurement | ◎ | Dedicated manager, operational support, optional quarterly reviews |
D. Content, authoring & assessment (23–30)
Not "is there an authoring tool" but "how long does one person take to build one piece of content". Item 30 (ownership and export) is settled in the contract.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | P1 | Can text, images, video, audio, PDF, quizzes, tests and surveys be combined into content without writing code? | Build content from one of your own PDFs or decks, live | L&D | ◎ | 12 element types in a drag-and-drop editor | |
| 24 | P2 | Can desktop, tablet and mobile views be previewed and the content adjusted responsively? | Preview at three breakpoints | L&D · IT | ◎ | Preview baselines at 800px, 650px and 425px | |
| 25 | P2 | Can video, audio, PDF, embedded YouTube and internal links all be operated? | Test file upload and link embedding | L&D | ○ | MP4, MP3/WAV, PDF and HTML embedding supported | |
| 26 | P1 | Can quizzes, tests and surveys be built with auto-grading, result release and manual grading configured? | Create a sample quiz and a sample test | L&D | ◎ | CBT assessment with auto-grading and result-release settings | |
| 27 | P2 | Can AI draft content, images, translations and summaries from a document or a URL? | Demo AI QuickMaker or the editor's AI | L&D | ◎ | AI authoring and AI QuickMaker | |
| 28 | P2 | Can long video be converted into short-form learning that then drives learners into the full course? | Convert one video; check the conversion statistics | L&D | ◎ | AI ShortClass auto-generates 10–60 second clips with conversion stats | |
| 29 | P2 | Beyond in-house content, is there an e-learning / short-form content library to choose from? | Review the content subscription catalogue | L&D · Procurement | ◎ | 6,000+ e-learning courses and 200,000+ short-form clips via subscription | |
| 30 | P1 | Is ownership of customer-created content, and the export method on termination, explicitly guaranteed? | Read the contract clause; download the actual export | Procurement · Legal | ◎ | Customer owns content it creates; HTML download (per published FAQ) |
E. Engagement, LXP & AI personalization (31–38)
Zero P1 items, by design. Leading here before mandatory training, completion, permissions and security are in place turns procurement into a technology sale. Item 35 is a TouchClass △.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | P2 | Can social learning be run — boards, comments, likes, saves, private posts, anonymous topics? | Sample TouchTogether topics | L&D · Business | ◎ | Topic permissions, anonymity, private posts, attachments and statistics | |
| 32 | P2 | Can voluntary participation be designed using points, badges, frames and rankings? | Build one gamification campaign | L&D | ◎ | 18 point-award conditions, plus ranking, badges and frames | |
| 33 | P2 | Can live sessions, chat, attendance, replay and attendee export be handled inside the platform? | Run a live broadcast test; export the attendee list | L&D · IT | ◎ | Up to 4-hour live sessions, chat, replay and attendee download | |
| 34 | P2 | Are participatory formats beyond training supported — surveys, events, VOC, field case sharing? | Sample campaign topics and surveys | L&D · Business | ◎ | Extends into community, VOC and events in observed deployments | |
| 35 | P2 | Can career paths and learning recommendations be connected precisely against a role / competency / skills graph? | Review role-to-skill mapping and the HRIS data structure | L&D · HR | △ | Interest-keyword curation is supported; a full skills graph requires separate design work | |
| 36 | P2 | Is personalized recommendation offered from popular searches, behavioral history and interest keywords? | Ask how recommendations are derived and explained | L&D | ◎ | AI curation and interest-keyword recommendation | |
| 37 | P2 | Can an AI assistant handle course FAQs and material-grounded Q&A to cut repeat enquiries? | Attach a PDF, then test Q&A against it | L&D · IT | ◎ | AI chatbot, file-grounded Q&A, usage statistics | |
| 38 | P3 | Can the mobile home, recommended courses, popular courses, rankings and saved items be composed to drive motivation? | Demo the learner home configuration | L&D | ◎ | 18 home elements and 15 menu types |
F. Data, analytics & measurement (39–45)
Not whether a stats screen exists, but whether it exports in a form an auditor accepts. Item 43 is a TouchClass △.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 39 | P1 | Are statistics provided for logins, courses, content, feedback, short-form, chatbot and group comparison? | Review a sample of each statistics menu | L&D | ◎ | 7+ analysis areas with download support | |
| 40 | P1 | Can non-login, non-completion and per-learner reports be downloaded and used for audit and reporting? | CSV download and a sample report | L&D · Audit | ◎ | Unique-visitor, non-login and enrolment-history downloads | |
| 41 | P2 | Can study volume, activity and engagement be compared across departments and groups? | A 2–10 group comparison report | L&D · Leadership | ◎ | Group comparison statistics supported | |
| 42 | P2 | Can you see whether short-form learning actually converted into course learning? | Views, likes and conversion-rate reporting | L&D | ◎ | ShortClass views, likes and learning-conversion metrics | |
| 43 | P1 | Are AI recommendation and analysis outputs kept separate from high-stakes HR decisions such as promotion, appraisal and compensation? | Review the data-use policy, human review step and audit logs | HR · Legal · IT | △ | The AI features exist, but separation from high-stakes HR requires the customer's policy, approval and audit structure | |
| 44 | P2 | Can KPIs — participation, production time, ticket volume, admin workload — be compared before and after a pilot? | A before/after report | L&D · Leadership | ○ | Verified by combining platform statistics with the pilot report | |
| 45 | P2 | Can natural-language admin queries or report automation cut the time spent on operational analysis? | Demo the AI admin or dashboard querying | L&D | ◎ | Admin AI with statistics querying |
G. Security, privacy & compliance (46–53)
All eight items are P1. Under data-processing rules the vendor itself becomes the object of review. Item 53 is a TouchClass △.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46 | P1 | Can an information security and privacy management-system certification, plus an international security certification, be produced? | Certificate, certified scope, most recent audit | IT · Privacy | ◎ | Holds ISMS-P and ISO/IEC 27001 (security) | |
| 47 | P1 | Can you produce a record of passing enterprise or financial-sector vendor security audits, plus evidence of data minimization, processing arrangements and liability insurance? | Document stating auditing body, year and score (or pass status); security questionnaire responses; supporting evidence | Privacy · Legal | ◎ | Vendor security audit: 99.1 points (2023); data minimization; liability insurance (scale evidence) | |
| 48 | P1 | Can encryption at rest and in transit, data residency and access-control principles be explained? | Security architecture document | IT · Security | ◎ | AWS Seoul region, encryption, access control | |
| 49 | P1 | Can admin, sub-admin and learner permissions be separated and run on least-privilege? | Test one account per role | IT · L&D | ◎ | Permission separation with admin logging | |
| 50 | P1 | Can SSO, SAML 2.0, OAuth 2.0, LDAP/AD and MFA or biometric federation be evaluated? | SSO integration documentation and references | IT | ◎ | Standard auth protocols, with a banking SSO reference (integration) | |
| 51 | P1 | Is audit tracing possible — admin activity logs, source IP, menu activity, screen-capture logs? | Sample of log retention and querying | IT · Audit | ◎ | Admin logs and capture logs supported | |
| 52 | P1 | Can you produce your continuous-uptime record and incident history, plus backup and high-availability procedures, as documents? | Length of uninterrupted operation, incident history, SLA and incident-response procedure documents | IT | ○ | AWS-based; five years of uninterrupted operation in the financial sector (evidence). Rated ○ because the SLA and incident-history documents are provided separately at contract stage | |
| 53 | P1 | Are there content leak-prevention features — capture prevention, watermarking, download control? | Capture tests on iOS and Android; review the download policy | IT · Security | △ | Capture logging and masking are supported; on iOS, complete blocking is not claimed — it is an OS-level constraint |
H. Integration, scale & interoperability (54–57)
"Yes, we integrate" is not information. Get the field-mapping table, the sync cadence and a separately quoted integration cost, in writing.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54 | P1 | Can account, org and learning data be integrated with HRIS, ERP, CRM, groupware and portals? | List the target systems and map the data fields | IT · L&D | ○ | HRIS, ERP, CRM, groupware and API integration | |
| 55 | P2 | Can the integration method (API, webhook, CSV) be chosen in stages, with cost and timeline quoted separately? | Integration quote and sample API | IT · Procurement | ○ | REST API, webhook and CSV approaches available | |
| 56 | P1 | Can you produce a track record of operating at thousands-to-tens-of-thousands scale, and peak-concurrency load-test results, as documents? | Largest single-customer learner count (not total customer count); load-test result values and test conditions | IT · Leadership | ◎ | Largest single customer: 39,000 learners; 17 financial institutions, about 135,800 cumulative users; 18,000 concurrent load-test result (not a guaranteed steady-state capacity) — scale evidence | |
| 57 | P2 | Can a standalone domain, white-label and a customer-branded experience be extended? | Review branded domain and app examples | L&D · Brand | ◎ | Standalone app, standalone domain, white-label |
I. Implementation, support, cost & contract (58–60)
All three are P1. Any line item missing from the quote is a line item that gets invoiced later.
| No. | Priority | Item | How to verify | Owner | Current LMS | TouchClass | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58 | P1 | Is the implementation-support scope clear — site setup, content migration, admin training, pilot operation? | Onboarding schedule and a RACI | L&D · Procurement | ◎ | 4-week pilot, content migration and admin training (per published FAQ) | |
| 59 | P1 | Can a three-year TCO be compared across licence, per-user charges, content subscription, integration and operational support? | A written quote plus a three-year cost table | Procurement · Finance | ◎ | Published list pricing plus an Enterprise custom tier (pricing) | |
| 60 | P1 | Are termination, data export, content ownership and notice conditions clearly defined? | Contract, termination process, a sample export | Procurement · Legal | ○ | HTML download of customer-created content, with termination terms (per published FAQ) |
Sources for the TouchClass ratings: https://www.touchclass.com/en/questions · https://www.touchclass.com/en/security · https://www.touchclass.com/en/price · https://www.touchclass.com/en/integration
All 60 items — download as CSV
No form, no login. The "Current LMS" column ships empty, so the file can be sent straight to candidate vendors to be filled in.
The three items TouchClass rated △ on itself
Three of the 60 items are rated △ (partially supported, with constraints). They are published rather than hidden, as a guard against overclaiming.
Evaluating organizations should split these out as pre-adoption tasks.
Skills graph and career paths
Interest-keyword curation and personalized recommendation are supported. What is not delivered out of the box is a structured role-and-competency skills graph with career-path recommendation built on top of it. That requires separate design work.
Confirm before adopting — does the organization already have a role/competency framework? If not, how far will it be simplified? Materials to prepare: a role-to-skill sample table, HRIS fields, the pilot's target roles.
Separation from high-stakes HR decisions
The AI recommendation and analysis features exist. Keeping their output separate from high-stakes HR decisions such as promotion, appraisal and compensation is not something a product feature settles on its own. It needs the customer's data-use policy, a human review step, and audit-log and permission policies.
Confirm before adopting — is there an internal rule that AI recommendation and analysis output is not used for appraisal, promotion or pay? Materials to prepare: AI-use disclosure, human review procedure, log and permission policy.
Screen-capture prevention
Capture logging, masking and watermarking are supported. However, on iOS, complete blocking of screen capture is not claimed — it is an OS-level constraint. Instead of promising total prevention, the response level is defined by combining capture logs, masking, watermarks and download policy.
Confirm before adopting — what exactly must be protected, and on iOS, are masking, logging and watermarking sufficient? Materials to prepare: capture test results, download policy, the security notice shown to learners.
If a vendor returns a checklist with ◎ in every row, that is not a comparison document — it is a brochure. The three items above are the real ratings, and they are the point at which you can verify that this checklist was not engineered to flatter its author. Apply the same standard to every candidate and ask where their △ marks are. A vendor that reports none has told you something useful.
TouchClass rating distribution — and why this table should not be read as a score
The baseline TouchClass rating across all 60 items. Do not use it for a head-to-head score comparison. The reason is stated directly below the table.
| Category | Items | P1 | ◎ | ○ | △ | × |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Learning strategy | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| B. Learner experience | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| C. Admin operations | 8 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| D. Content & assessment | 8 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| E. Engagement · LXP · AI | 8 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| F. Data & analytics | 7 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| G. Security & privacy | 8 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| H. Integration & scale | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| I. Cost & contract | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 60 | 32 | 41 | 16 | 3 | 0 |
Recommended demo sequence — covering 60 items in 5 sessions
Do not ask all 60 in one meeting. Split them across five demos and tell candidates in advance which item numbers each session covers.
Requesting the identical sequence from every candidate is what keeps conditions equal.
| # | Demo scenario | Items covered | Who attends |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Convert one of your own files (PDF or deck) into mobile content and short-form — and time it | 23, 24, 27, 28 | L&D |
| 2 | Experience the learner app directly: enrol, comment, save, receive push, watch short-form | 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 31 | L&D · learner reps |
| 3 | In the admin console: assign a cohort, nudge non-completers, issue a certificate | 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 | L&D · Audit |
| 4 | Run one session that needs live streaming or QR attendance, in parallel | 20, 33 | L&D · Business |
| 5 | Review the statistics reports and the security evidence together | 39, 40, 46, 47, 51, 52 | IT · Privacy · Audit |
Keep the first evaluation to 50–100 learners, 4 weeks, one training task and one or two KPIs — not a full replacement. Comparisons framed as full replacement raise the decision unit so high that the conclusion slips, and the incumbent LMS stays by default. Validate one slice and the numbers arrive within four weeks.
External standards referenced
The structure and items of this checklist draw on the public standards below. Each is linked so the original can be read directly.
| Standard / document | What it contributed | Reflected in | Original |
|---|---|---|---|
| D2L — LMS RFP Template: How to Structure Your Vendor Evaluation | An LMS RFP should compare candidates with the same questions, the same criteria and an objective score — not a feature demo | Overall checklist structure | d2l.com/blog/lms-rfp-template |
| Momentive Software — LMS RFP Template | An RFP must carry functionality, technology, security, support, pricing and evaluation criteria together | Categories G, I | momentivesoftware.com/blog/lms-rfp-template |
| World Learning / SIT — LMS RFP | The standard requirement categories of a real LMS RFP — course creation, user management, mobile, social learning, reporting, integration, security | Structure of categories A–H | worldlearning.org — LMS-RFP.pdf |
| W3C — WCAG 2.2 | Web accessibility baseline — keyboard, screen reader, mobile usability | Item 13 | w3.org/TR/WCAG22 |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | International standard for information security management systems | Item 46 | iso.org/standard/27001 |
| ISMS-P — Korea's information security and privacy management certification | Domestic management-system certification criteria | Items 46, 47 | isms-p.or.kr |
| NIST — SP 800-63 Digital Identity Guidelines | Risk-based approach to digital and federated identity | Item 50 | nist.gov — SP 800-63 |
| Deloitte — 2026 Global Human Capital Trends | Continuous learning in the age of AI; learning in the flow of work | Framing of category E | deloitte.com — Human Capital Trends |
| LinkedIn — 2026 Talent Velocity Advantage Report | Growth culture and learning inside the flow of work | Framing of category E | learning.linkedin.com — talent velocity report |
Documents underpinning the TouchClass ratings: FAQ · Security & certifications · Integrations · Standalone app · AI ShortClass · Pricing. Operating figures are cited from the 35-month operating data report covering 100+ companies.
Frequently asked questions
The eight questions that come up most often when teams build an LMS comparison table or an RFP checklist.
What should an LMS actually be compared on?
On the same question set, not on feature lists. Put the same 60 items — across learning strategy, learner experience and accessibility, admin operations, content and assessment, engagement/LXP/AI, data and analytics, security and privacy, integration and scale, and cost and contract — to every candidate, and hold the verification method (demo, document, contract clause) constant too. The decision is then made on the gaps in the 32 P1 must-have items, not on a total score.
What belongs in an LMS RFP checklist?
A functional requirements list alone will get sent back by security and procurement. Alongside functionality, include technology (integration, API, sync cadence), security (management-system certification, encryption, audit logs, SSO), support (onboarding, content migration, admin training), pricing (three-year TCO, contract minimum, tier steps), the evaluation criteria themselves (priority and rating scale), and termination terms (data export, content ownership). The 60 items on this page can be lifted directly into an RFP requirements list.
Should we just pick whichever product scores highest?
Not advisable. A total score is a function of how many items there are and how they are weighted, which favours whoever wrote the questions. There is one rule instead: mark every P1 item where the current LMS is × (not supported) or △ (constrained), then check whether a candidate scores ◎ or ○ on those. Where the candidate is also △, split it out as a pre-adoption task. Finally, separate the risk of staying put from the risk a 4-week pilot can actually test.
How are the priorities (P1/P2/P3) assigned?
P1 means operations do not hold without it — 32 of the 60 items, covering automated mandatory training, automatic completion judgement, permission separation, all eight security items, three-year TCO and termination terms. P2 covers the 27 items that drive operating quality and participation. P3 is a single bonus item and is not used for the selection decision. The engagement/LXP/AI category has no P1 items at all, and that is deliberate: leading with AI before mandatory training and security are in place turns procurement into a technology sale.
Has TouchClass rated itself △ on any item?
On three. Item 35, skills graph — interest-keyword curation is supported, but a structured role-and-skills graph requires separate design work. Item 43, separation of AI output from high-stakes HR decisions — the AI features exist, but separating them from promotion, appraisal and compensation needs the customer's own policy, approval and audit structure. Item 53, capture prevention — capture logging and masking are supported, but on iOS complete blocking is not claimed, as it is an OS-level constraint. All three should be split out as pre-adoption tasks.
Can we compare without replacing the LMS we already run?
Yes. Keep the first evaluation to 50–100 learners, 4 weeks, one training task and one or two KPIs rather than a full replacement. Leave the incumbent LMS in place and run one slice alongside it — no integration is required to start. Comparisons framed as full replacement raise the decision unit so high that the conclusion slips, and the incumbent usually stays by default. Comparing before/after pilot reports turns the call into a number rather than an impression.
How far should security be checked in an LMS comparison?
All eight security items are P1. Do not stop at "do you hold the certification" — request the certificate itself, the certified scope (whole service or part of it), the validity period and the surveillance-audit history, then cross-check them against the data-processing agreement. After that, confirm encryption at rest and in transit, data residency, permission separation, SSO (SAML 2.0, OAuth 2.0, LDAP, MFA), audit logs, backup and incident response, and content leak prevention. TouchClass holds ISMS-P and ISO/IEC 27001; details are on the security page.
Can the checklist be downloaded and sent to candidate vendors?
Yes. All 60 items are published as a CSV with no form and no login. The "Current LMS" column ships empty, so candidates can fill it in on the same scale (◎3 / ○2 / △1 / ×0) and the comparison table assembles itself. When the tables come back, also ask where each △ sits and why it was rated that way. A vendor reporting no △ at all has told you something useful in itself.
Next steps
Comparing, choosing and diagnosing are different stages. Go to the document that matches yours.
What to choose on
Eight criteria — security, active usage, content production, compliance automation, scale, TCO, integration, operating-scale record — plus a decision table by organization type.
Self-diagnosisAlready running an LMS?
Diagnose the current platform's usage and admin workload first. Replacement is not always the answer.
Raw dataSetting expectations
MAU distribution and industry baselines from 35 months of operating data across 100+ companies.
