Compared with the platform you are actually considering.
Ten comparison pages. Each one names the buyer the other product suits better, quotes its published pricing with a link to where that price came from, and marks the date it was checked. A comparison that concedes nothing tells you nothing, and you already know how to read those.
Every page argues against us somewhere
Lurno publishes ten comparison pages, one for each platform buyers shortlist alongside it: Sana, Docebo, Moodle, Canvas LMS, LearnUpon, TalentLMS, Kajabi, Teachable, 360Learning and LearnHouse. Every page carries a section naming the organisations that platform genuinely suits better, and it is placed where you will read it rather than at the bottom. Competitor pricing is quoted from the vendor's own page where one exists and a named third-party benchmark where it does not, each figure carrying a source link and the date it was checked. Where Lurno has not shipped something — SCORM, xAPI and LTI runtimes, SAML and OIDC single sign-on, payments and checkout — the comparison says so in the same table as everything else, not in a footnote. Lurno is a multi-tenant learning platform built by Augmental Learning Inc. for institutions that run many organisations at once, and these pages are equally clear about who that is not.
Three things you will not find here: a testimonial, a customer logo, or a statistic nobody sourced. Real customers exist and have not given permission to name them, and invented ones would be worse than none. What we can describe are the shapes: a corporate academy runs training for 15 client companies from one tenant, and a K-12 publisher runs 114 schools on a single platform.
Prices move and products ship. If a fact on one of these pages has gone stale, tell us and we will correct it rather than let it sit there working in our favour.
Find the one you are weighing us against
Each card says who that platform genuinely suits. Open it for the side-by-side table, the published pricing, and the part where they win.
Four questions that decide it
Learning-platform evaluations are usually decided by four questions, and none of them is the feature list. First, how does the platform separate audiences — one instance filtered by hand, portals, or genuinely nested organisations with their own administrators, branding and domains? Second, what happens to assessment and credentialing — is a released grade evidence that a competency framework and a certificate policy can both read, or a number in a gradebook? Third, what will procurement ask for — a DPA, a FERPA addendum, an audit trail, access reviews, a breach process, accessibility conformance — and can the vendor produce each one without turning it into a project? Fourth, what does it cost to leave: can you get content, learner records and credentials out, and does anything you already issued survive the exit? Score a shortlist on those four and the feature grid usually stops mattering.
- Exit cost
- What it takes to stop using a learning platform: getting content and learner records out in a form something else can read, keeping credentials you have already issued valid, and untangling whatever was built around it. It is the question buyers ask last and regret asking last.
Separation. Ask to see two client organisations side by side, each on its own domain, each with its own administrators, and ask where the boundary is actually enforced. In Lurno it is enforced underneath the platform, not by a filter something on top has to remember to apply. Inside each organisation there is a branch tree, and a role granted at a branch cascades down it. See white-label and domains.
Assessment and credentialing. Ask what a grade becomes after it is released. In Lurno the same graded attempt is the evidence behind a competency, the condition a certificate policy checks, and a row in reporting — marked once, read in three places, never exported and re-joined. Certificates carry a public verification page anyone can check. See assessments and grading.
Procurement. Ask for the paperwork in week one, not week nine. Lurno signs a DPA, offers a FERPA addendum, keeps an audit log that cannot be quietly edited that cannot be edited afterwards, runs access reviews, and handles GDPR consent, subject access and erasure with a two-person rule. Interfaces are built to WCAG 2.1 AA with automated axe checks in CI. We are aligned to ISO 27001 practices and hold neither an ISO 27001 nor a SOC 2 certificate, and we have not commissioned a third-party accessibility audit or published a VPAT. See security.
Leaving. Ask every vendor on the shortlist this one, us included. Lurno's position: a learner's record can be exported on request under GDPR, erasure is available and takes two people to authorise, and a certificate stays checkable on its public verification page whatever you do next. Exporting a course as a standards package depends on the SCORM and xAPI work, which is in development — if walking away with a package matters to you, ask where that stands before you sign anything.
The same arguments, written out
Where a comparison needed more room than a table gives it.
About the comparisons themselves
Name the platform you are weighing us against.
The demo starts there: your org chart, your requirements matrix, and a straight answer on anything we have not shipped.