Universities
Programme structure, and a conformance statement you can hand to procurement
A university evaluation is two: does the LMS fit the academic structure, and does it survive the security and accessibility review. We publish enough to answer the second without a call.
Judged on: Procurement, and academic governance
What you would actually use
In your order, using your words — programme, semester, credit, transcript.
Curriculum that cannot ship without approval
Courses are versioned, submitted, reviewed and published. Restoring rebuilds from the snapshot and shows the diff first.
Assessment integrity without a camera
Signals from a cooperating browser, shown to a human marker with the caveat on screen and disclosed to the candidate while it happens. No automatic verdicts.
An accessibility conformance statement with its open items listed
WCAG 2.2 AA, automated checks that fail the build, and a published list of what still does not pass. Procurement has read a hundred statements claiming full conformance.
Roles and scopes that match a faculty structure
Eleven cloneable templates, scoped to a branch, department, course or single record, with per-user overrides and out-of-office delegation.
Data governance you can inspect
Row-level security forced in the database, a hash-chained audit log, retention policies, legal holds and subject-access requests.
Self-hosting, if that is the requirement
The whole platform boots from one compose file with no cloud account. The exit is documented before the entrance.
When we are the wrong choice
Multi-region data residency is designed and deliberately not built. If your requirement is that data stays in a named region enforced by the platform, we cannot honestly claim that yet. Nor do we have SAML, OIDC or SCIM.
Start on the free tier. Bring your spreadsheet.
A hundred seats, twenty-five courses and no conversation. If you would rather see it driven by someone who knows it, that takes twenty minutes.
Or open the sandbox (opens in a new tab) and click around first. No form.