The Docebo alternative for teams who want the price before the sales cycle.
Docebo publishes no pricing, and third-party benchmarks put typical contracts above $25,000 a year. Configuration depth comes with implementation weight: most deployments involve professional services. Lurno publishes four tiers, starts at $119 a month, and is set up by your own administrators.
Should you move from Docebo to Lurno?
Docebo is an established enterprise LMS with extensive configuration, white-labelling and a large partner ecosystem, and it remains a sound choice for a large enterprise with a dedicated L&D operations team. Lurno suits a mid-market institution or corporate team that needs a number before it starts a sales cycle, and would rather configure the platform itself than budget for an implementation project. Docebo publishes no pricing and third-party benchmarks put typical contracts above $25,000 a year; Lurno publishes its tiers — $119, $299 and $599 a month, plus a quoted Institution tier — with the member and sub-organisation caps next to each one. Lurno is also multi-tenant to the root: one account holds nested sub-organisations, each with its own domain, branding, roles and administrators, which is the shape a school group, a publisher or an academy training client companies needs. SCORM, xAPI and LTI 1.3 runtimes are in development at Lurno, so plan around that if your library is already packaged.
- Multi-tenant learning platform
- One account that holds several separate organisations — a client company, a campus, a school — each with its own members, branding, domain and administrators, while the parent keeps a view across them. Portals and sub-accounts separate audiences inside one organisation; multi-tenancy separates the organisations themselves.
What decides this one
The rows a mid-market L&D team argues about while writing the business case.
| Capability | Lurno | Docebo |
|---|---|---|
| Published pricing | Four tiers, on the [pricing page](/pricing) | None published |
| Entry point | $119 a month, up to 1,000 members | Third-party benchmarks put typical contracts above $25,000 a year |
| Top published tier | $599 a month — 20,000 members, unlimited sub-organisations | Quote only |
| When you learn the price | Before the first call | After a sales cycle |
| Getting set up | Your own administrators, in the admin interface; onboarding included on the Institution tier | Most deployments involve professional services |
| Configuration | Opinionated — an organisation tree, a permission catalogue, branding and domains, configured in the product | Extensive |
| Partner ecosystem | None. You work with the team that builds the product | Large |
| Scoped for | Institutions and corporate teams — school groups, publishers, academies training client companies | Corporate L&D |
| Nested sub-organisations, each with its own domain and branding | Yes | Extensive white-labelling; priced and scoped for corporate L&D |
| Guardian portal for parents, scoped by data category | Yes | Built for corporate L&D audiences |
| SCORM 1.2 / 2004, xAPI and LTI 1.3 runtime | In development | Ask them |
Docebo facts come from its public positioning and third-party benchmark data at trainingcost.com, checked 24 August 2026 — prices move, so verify before you sign. Ask them marks a dimension we could not source from a public page; we would rather leave a gap than guess.
What actually changes
The business case can be written this afternoon
Every tier is public, and so are its limits. Team is $119 a month for 1,000 members and one sub-organisation. Growth is $299 for 5,000 members and five sub-organisations. Scale is $599 for 20,000 members and unlimited sub-organisations. Institution is quoted, for custom limits, a DPA, access reviews and your own AI provider keys.
- Billed monthly, or 15% less annually. The cap sits next to the price, so you can check the fit against your headcount before anyone books a call.
- There is no self-serve checkout yet, so a tier still starts with a demo — but you arrive knowing the number rather than discovering it.
Your administrators do the configuration
The organisation tree, the roles, the branding and the domains are configured in the product by the people who will run it. Create sub-organisations, invite their administrators, build roles from the permission catalogue, upload a logo and palette, and point a custom domain at the tenant — TLS is issued automatically.
- For the first programme, upload the material you already have and AI drafts modules and lessons grounded in it, quoting document, version and page. A person accepts or rejects every block before it enters the programme.
- Accounts are created by invitation today; self-serve signup and trials are in development.
One tenant covers the whole institution, not one department
Sub-organisations nest, so a group holds its schools and an academy holds its client companies, each behind its own domain and brand. Inside an organisation, a branch tree carries roles: a role granted at a branch cascades down it, so a regional manager sees their region without anyone maintaining a parallel list.
- A corporate academy runs training for 15 client companies from one tenant. A K-12 publisher runs 114 schools on a single platform.
- Guardians get their own portal, scoped by data category. Instructors, reviewers, mentors and managers get roles built from a permission catalogue rather than four fixed ones.
Where Docebo is the better choice.
Docebo is the better choice for large enterprises with a dedicated L&D operations team and budget for a managed implementation. If you have people whose job is the LMS, a professional-services engagement is not a cost to avoid — it is how a large, deep configuration gets built correctly the first time, and Docebo's depth rewards it.
Three cases where we would tell you to stay. If standards conformance gates your rollout: SCORM, xAPI and LTI 1.3 are modelled in Lurno but the runtimes are still being built. If procurement requires SAML or OIDC single sign-on, or MFA enforced by the platform — Lurno ships partner sign-on (silent SSO) today, and SAML/OIDC and MFA are on the roadmap with no date attached. And if your requirements list is long, specific and already agreed: a large partner ecosystem means someone has usually met your requirement before, and a small vendor cannot promise that.
The reverse is the case for Lurno. A mid-market team without an L&D operations function buys the implementation as well as the licence, and pays for configuration depth it will not use. If you want a price you can put in a budget line, a platform your own administrators can set up, and a tenancy model that treats a school or a client company as an organisation rather than a portal, that is the trade.
The parts that matter to an institution
An organisation tree, not a list of portals
Nested sub-organisations, each with members, branding, domain and administrators of its own. Inside each, a branch tree where a role granted at a branch cascades down it, plus groups and custom roles from a permission catalogue.
Your brand, your domain
White-label branding per organisation, inherited by sub-organisations unless they override it. Point a custom domain at any tenant and TLS is issued automatically. Notification email leaves from your own domain.
AI that drafts, then stops
Authoring, an in-course tutor, grading drafts and a copilot — grounded in documents your organisation uploaded, with citations. Nothing reaches a live programme or a released grade without a person confirming it.
Assessment depth for accredited programmes
53 resource types, 19 question types, 7 assessment types. Analytic, holistic and single-point rubrics, peer review, portfolios, a unified grading queue, psychometrics with adaptive IRT/CAT, and competency frameworks with evidence and auto-mastery.
Evidence procurement will ask for
separation enforced underneath the platform — isolation lives in the database, not just the application. Plus an audit log that cannot be quietly edited, access reviews, GDPR consent, DSAR and erasure with a two-person rule, a DPA and a FERPA addendum, and WCAG 2.1 AA checked by axe in CI.
SCORM, xAPI and LTI 1.3
In developmentModelled in the product; the runtimes are being built. Talk to us early if standards conformance gates your rollout — it changes the sequencing, and sometimes the answer.
The rest of the shortlist
Same format, same rules: sourced facts, and a section on where the other product wins.
Before you book the call
Get the number, then decide.
Thirty minutes, your own material, and an honest answer about where we do not fit. The prices are already on the site.