Some people are spending Valentine’s Day honoring love in all its forms, not just romance. What meaningful relationships might you like to celebrate this year?
Picture Prompt | Broadway Re-enactments
Are you a fan of musicals? What do you think of these viral videos?
Word of the Day: monarch
This word has appeared in 180 articles on NYTimes.com in the past year. Can you use it in a sentence?
What’s Your Reaction to Super Bowl LX?
Did you watch? What was your favorite part? The game? The commercials? The halftime show? The snacks?
Word of the Day: indigent
This word has appeared in 36 articles on NYTimes.com in the past year. Can you use it in a sentence?
The Impact of AI on L&D and Training: Latest Insight
In the past month or so, I recognize and see more and more of AI and how it will become so intertwined with any type of learning system, that what you – the vendor and you – the L&D, Training, CLO, HR professionals, plus C-Suite will drastically change.
The question is whether you (the latter group) see this as a win.
As anyone who has ever had the pleasure of asking people if they believe in change, the workforce, and every applicant says yes, you, the asker, know a lot of people can’t deal with it.
We see this as a training and L&D professional issue.
Buy-in has to come from the top, and even then, depending on, say, separate BUs (Business Units), the buy-in can and is ignored.
Training and L&D become the bad people, the change-makers, even though the change will benefit across the board.
Vendors should – and a lot do not- recognize this.
Those who adapt quickly, those who do not, fall behind.
Early adopters are growing due to AI in learning technology and systems; however, the context of its application isn’t always clear.
Change here is crucial for acceptance and utilization, and what I propose, what I believe we are heading towards within a couple of years, but easily IMO a few vendors (small percentile) can drastically make the change, across the board, and not bits here and there, before the end of 27.
There will, without a doubt, be vendors starting to add what I see in bigger chunks before the end of this year, because some are already in the midst of it.
The question, though, is how far are they willing to go?
The client, as a whole, I can tell you, will not see the big picture here – of why this makes the most sense.
Why, as a vendor, this is logical for any use case – because the approach isn’t just a “what if”, rather it is a “will be”.
Let’s be clear: AI is still at a very early stage, despite what many people believe – they see it as more mature.
Terms such as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) sound cool, but from a learning perspective, it remains a big unknown (and there are AI experts/researchers who believe AGI is at least a few years away, despite what other companies/researchers say). Ditto on Singularity.
People using ChatGPT (the free version) will now see ads, and, despite what OpenAI says, they will be tailored at some point.
Other freebies around AI access will eventually follow this route.
It’s all about generating revenue here, and thus, ads are a necessary evil.
While this won’t affect LLMs within systems, for the people who just decide to let their users, go with the freebie ChatGPT at their workplace, it will become another form of junk – since it searches the web, and whalla the snake eats it’s tail (a term regarding content created by AI used on web sites, and by AI searching the web, reading the content – you get the snake eating it’s tail).
Ignoring those ads on the Super Bowl around AI, funny, none of them mentioned the hallucination issue or other issues – hence the perception that AI is perfect.
Can AI in any system become 100% accurate?
Perhaps.
More AI vendors are pushing around the high to near-accurate percentile (ignoring the AI bias issue that exists, plus prompt leaking, among others)
The 99% approach of accuracy, with the idea that hey, even humans make mistakes – so it is fine if AI does this – isn’t reassuring.
Humans should recheck their work, and any small mistake can have serious consequences when they fail to do so.
Workforce Impact
A recent study is showing something unexpected.
Workers burned out due to AI.
A Harvard Business Review study found that employees who fully embraced AI increased their productivity by handling more tasks, but in return, they were given more work to complete.
Prompting and reviewing information for accuracy of the work and tasks went into not just the lunch hour, but also meetings.
On the Hacker News forum, one respondent argued the same point, noting that “productivity increased by possibly 10 percent – and that because of the company’s pressure to leverage AI (at least the respondent felt this way), the respondent noted they felt they had to work longer hours. Again, burnout.
Speaking of employees, nowadays most folks are using AI notetakers on web conferencing calls (me included.
Two interesting tidbits are appearing:
a. Because the notetakers do not know when to stop, they are picking up additional context which may be disparaging comments on the individual (who dropped off the call, for example, or mutes and isn’t paying attention.
I’ve experienced this myself: people were talking about me (and where they thought I was going when I asked for a couple of minutes), and were surprised when I returned with a cup of coffee.
Another time, I jumped to get a Coke, and upon reviewing the notetaker, I saw the attendees gossiping about an employee and discussing an internal company issue (non-relevant to our call).
While vendors in the learning system space have yet to fully incorporate their own AI notetaker, rather than, say, Zoom as a third-party integration or similar, I do wonder whether they are aware of the issue around the use of an AI notetaker.
If, per se, the AI notetaker captures sensitive information or additional negative context about an individual or individuals on the calls who bounced off – or those employees who could not attend, but had their notetaker (or the system’s notetaker in our scenario) capture said information – the entire transcript can be viewed by anyone.
I will be clear: I am a big fan of the AI notetaker I use and see it as a great benefit for my business and clients.
Who is embracing AI?
This bit of information really surprised me and will dovetail nicely into my blue-collar post around AI and what learning systems need – along with specific functionality and yes, content to train this workforce, as more white-collar professionals fearful of losing their jobs to AI, are switching to a blue-collar role.
Business Insider found that 58% of blue-collar workers have very high confidence in AI’s potential for their career growth, compared to 42% of white-collar workers.
Think about that.
Systems in our industry overwhelmingly are targeting white-collar workforces – something that is well-known inside the space, and you can see it with L&D folks, even if they want to provide a level of training for their blue-collar workers (if needed).
The problem, when it comes to training blue-collar workers (besides unions, which is another story, because training can only be done during the employee’s work hours), is that it’s not uncommon to hear from L&D executives that the C-suite, i.e., the CEO, doesn’t feel the same way.
With the productivity impact often cited.
I experienced this firsthand when my CEO told me that our “blue-collar workforce” didn’t need training, even though, in an open letter to the company, the CEO mentioned the benefits of training for all employees.
There are systems that focus solely on the blue-collar workforce, and, as my post will note, I believe, across the board, this is an untapped market because it is different from frontline/deskless.
The fact that a poll shows greater embracement of career development with AI among this workforce, compared to the white-collar workforce, should not be excluded from the conversation.
Recommend Reads
What to watch for
- Hybrid AI – There are vendors jumping into this – a combination of Predictive AI and Gen AI – those that go full throttle or at least enough, will be able to increase reliability -a minus with Gen AI, but can be offset by Predictive AI
- SLM- I’ve written in the past about Small Language Models – they are cost-efficient energy-wise compared to an LLM, and can handle similar task levels. Again, vendors in our industry seem to either ignore this, i.e., using an SLM for their system, heck, even with their app on a mobile device, or just lack knowledge thereof
- LDM – Large Database Models
Bottom Line
This is a different type of post than what you often see.
I hope that it offers two sides here – one to keep folks updated on relevant information around AI – the latest, that I see as imperative, not just to L&D and Training professionals, but also vendors; and some insight across the way.
I’ll be publishing one every other month.
I’d love to hear your comments on whether you would like to see more of these posts tied to AI with this format, or if it is nice but not needed.
Turning Customer Training Costs into Revenue: Successful Strategies
Over the past two months, I have received numerous questions from readers, including those on social media, about generating revenue to offset system costs.
Way too many people overcharge, then gripe about low usage (your content can play a role here), ignoring the yearly fee to break even.
Looking to increase your budget?
Focus on generating revenue.
Want to drive more purchases?
Generate revenue.
I surmise you hear it all the time, that training/learning is a cost-buster. Where are the returns? When I hear that, then I hear people in L&D, Training, and other departments who oversee learning or training, say ROI – and point to productivity – and a hocus pocus of data to reinforce that.
When budget cuts are announced, frustration often follows.
The key principle should always be to focus on the impact of learning.
Is it possible to turn employee training into a revenue generator?
Yes. The question is whether you want to charge your employees – not a big fan of that – but I worked at a company that charged every department in the company, a F250, as an LOB (Line of Business).
While this approach was not well-received, it is not uncommon.
The only way to generate revenue on the L&D side without coming off as though you robbed grandma for a box of cookies is to establish a certification program where the certificate benefits your employee in some way.
There, you could generate revenue and show real numbers. To do it is another blog post.
The Customer Training Side
I have previously discussed successful revenue-generating strategies that remain effective today.
At every company (start-up to large entity, including global association) I generated high profit whether from starting a program to changing red to black – when it came to customer training (nowadays referred to as CT or CT/PE – partner enablement; members – association, certification, and even the internal (employees free), external ($$$$).
For example, I transformed training from a cost center to a profit center for a non-profit organization.
The key takeaway is that this is achievable.
AI can help identify potential strategies, though it may not account for all variables.
A straightforward approach is to determine your break-even point and identify how to cover external costs, such as web conferencing or marketing tools.
When you can show the higher-ups in a dashboard that you made X dollars – i.e., you are a profit center, a company would have to be incompetent to crush your budget.
I worked at places where it was a battle to get funding. However, once I showed the money, I got more money, budget approvals, and the fast track to general approval.
The Basics
Today, there are systems – focused on customer training/partner enablement and even the association space, that include a marketing component – which you will need – we are not talking about integration with your marketing offering, we are referring to an actual marketing solution – at no or low cost to you.
Some systems offer built-in webinar and web conferencing capabilities, while most provide integration options.
The fact that so many systems are going to be built into an AI content creator (at no add-on fee) means you get a bonus.
This is why I always tell people if the system includes it, take it – because who knows – you are not forced to use it, but six months, you may go – “Yowsa, I need to create a lot of content – and have to now purchase an external authoring/content creator. Webinars can be highly profitable.
After the live session, you can add recordings to your content library and offer them for free or at various price points.er.
For this example, I will use Zoom.
For technical training, limit online sessions to 20 participants and on-site sessions to 10 or fewer.
For non-technical sessions, you can accommodate larger audiences.
However, to maintain interactivity and provide value, consider how you will address questions.
Recorded sessions can later be offered as part of a subscription or content package.
Let us review a typical session to illustrate how you can achieve profitability in under three months, cover your web conferencing costs, and generate profit thereafter.
This example involves a live webinar that is recorded and can be offered either for free or for a fee.
In this scenario, you will charge for webinar attendance.
The Rules of Success on whatever topic
a. For sessions longer than one hour, pause at the 45-minute mark for a 15-minute break. This applies to both online and on-site training. Avoid running sessions for 90 minutes without a break.
b. Schedule multiple sessions on the same topic, either over several days or multiple times per day. Depending on your web conferencing tool, you may be able to run concurrent sessions. For this example, sessions are scheduled throughout the month.
Why?
Not everyone will be able to attend. While recording and viewing later is popular, some people want to see it live to ask their questions and hear the retorts. Stay with the topic here. You can always have other sessions on other topics.
My playbook
Given an expected attrition rate of 10 to 20 percent, I recommend capping each session at 40 participants when scheduling multiple sessions throughout the month.
Offer sessions on various topics, potentially running the same topic multiple times per week or at different times in a single day. Each session contributes to overall profitability.
You can run this as a standalone, but I am seeing this sign-up and waitlist via my learning system, with the integration already in place.
Using Zoom as an example:
a. The monthly cost for Zoom Events, which allows hosting multiple simultaneous live sessions with up to 100 attendees, is $124.17.
b. Schedule four recurring sessions per month.
The cost remains $124.17 per month, as it is a flat rate.
What should you charge?
I go blue ocean here – which is a lower price point, build mass, compete and win -your competitors and plenty of others tend to charge high.
If I am doing recurring, even with 100 attendees, and I charge $24.75 (I am jumping into some neuromarketing here on the pricing, but you can just go 25 flat if you choose).
Assume 40 participants attend each session.
At a price point of $49.75 with 40 attendees, revenue per session is $1,990, with a cost of $124.17.
If you charge $19.99 and have 25 attendees, the revenue per session is $499.75, with a net profit of approximately $375.58 after costs.
For example, charging $24.75 with 40 attendees across four sessions per month, over 12 months, yields the following results:
My Revenue – $11,880 (USD)
My Cost – $1,490.04
My Net – $10,389.96
While you may choose to charge more, even modest attendance and pricing can generate profit.
If the webinar is tied to a certification program, you can go higher, of course.
Offering more topics and options each month can further increase net profit.
The Content
This is an area where you can consider higher pricing.
Again, what is your break-even point? This is the cost to you, the minimum amount you need to break even. A lot of people overcharge here, which impacts. With certification, you can go higher. Need CEU or CPD? You can increase.
Unless your vendor invoices monthly, you are typically paying for all end users upfront, regardless of actual usage.
If it is monthly, there are vendors that charge a fair price point – not something like $150 per user garbage.
For example, if the vendor charges $2 per user and you have 300 users in March, with 100 purchasing a $19.95 course each, what is the resulting revenue?
Revenue would be $1,995, with a cost of $200, resulting in a total profit of $1,795.
In most cases, you pay upfront for ‘monthly active users,’ and vendors typically provide unlimited usage for 12 months.
No refunds.
Thus, you bought the system for 35,000 – based on 500 users (your initial projection of usage) – you can go up and the vendor bills you – and you pay at the end of the year, or quarterly – but higher numbers, you would assume would mean lower price per user – sadly, not all vendors see it in this fashion.
Anyway, 500 are in the system, and each course is $29.95 (the cost factor has to consider current economic conditions, your audience’s location, and what the market will bear, without price gouging).
Remember, you want repeat customers, so if Fred buys one course, he may say three months later, buy two more, and so forth.
IF you have multi-tenancy, then more folks buy, and you offset the cost by charging for content (if applicable).
In my scenario, I am going to say that, over the course of a year, each end user buys 3 courses at $29.95 each.
Your break-even point for the entire year, based on 500 end users and the total cost of your system, is $70.
Many focus on monthly costs, but it is important to consider the total annual expenditure as outlined in upfront contracts.
Therefore, in my scenario,
Each user purchases three courses per year at $29.95 each.
Total sales per user amount to $89.85.
For 500 users, total sales would be $44,925.
With an annual fee of $35,000 and revenue of $44,925, you achieve a profit.
Alternatively, if you charge $39.95 per course and offer CEU courses at $79.95 to 150 participants, the revenue increases.
In my scenario, of the 500 people, 200 buy a CEU course (just one), but also purchase two other courses.
The other 300, purchase three courses, none CEU.
Once more, your cost is 35K, $70 per user, per year. Unlimited usage, etc.
Total sales per user for three courses over the year:
$119.85
Total annual profit with 300 users:
$35,955
Additionally, 200 of the 500 users purchase a CEU course at $79.95.
$15,990
Total sales are approximately $51,000, with annual costs of $35,000.
The remaining amount is profit.
If you have 2,000 users, and the vendor charges you 85K
The cost per user per year is 42.25
In this scenario, you may choose to charge $45 per course, exceeding the annual per-user cost.
This results in total sales of $270,000.
Your total cost is $85,000.
Profit is $185,000.
But what if we charge $29.95 per course and realize that 2,000 people will buy 3 courses per year?
Total sales: $179,520.
Total cost: $85,000.
Profit: $94,520.
Perhaps you choose a subscription bundle or a package of webinars, content, and whatever else.
With 2,000 users, your total cost remains $85,000.
Bottom Line
To make money in customer training/partner enablement/B2B/associations (that charge for content), you need to understand the break-even over the course of the year, and not the per month, if you pay upfront.
Next, you need to market to your end users – to build mass.
This is not, we build you will come here (for the record, with internal users, and free, you still need to use a marketing campaign approach).
Can you generate a million a year with the right pricing strategy and user base without charging exorbitant fees?
Yes.
Can you achieve profitability with your system, given annual costs and the user base?
Yes.
E-Learning 24/7
Trends in the Learning System Industry – Impact and Insights
Data reveals how your training and learning content is being received, highlighting its effectiveness or areas for improvement.
Data can also show, if you look across a greater landscape, what is happening in a specific industry or market, heck, even a vertical, depending on the parameters.
When you forecast, you use data.
You look for trends over time, and the data supporting them or the lack thereof.
Many people believe data is only a set of numbers.
However, data can be interpreted in a way that, upon exploration, points to pluses (most folks see it that way) or potential pitfalls.
Over the past year, I have observed a series of data over time, focusing on trends rather than individual numbers.
Does this data, aside from forecasting, indicate you need to watch this area more closely?
Does the data’s context reveal where the trend is heading after one month in 2026?
What I have been seeing, and saw in 2025, is continuing already into 2026.
Far too many vendors are missing it—and the fallout with their audience is immediate.
The same goes for buyers—yes, you.
If I am a vendor, I urge you to read these trends and pivot immediately—if you are not already.
These trends do not relate to AI (I want to stress that).
If I am a buyer or already have a system in place, I highly recommend considering your processes, your impact, and your objectives/goals.
I’m going to be blunt here. No sugarcoating. I know that may irk some folks, and I get that.
But sugarcoating doesn’t benefit anyone.
Trend One
Vendor Pricing
Vendors have been increasing the numbers.
Vendors try to pass on the cost to offset what it costs them (on an annual basis), ignoring the “cost of doing business.”
First point – again, this isn’t every vendor, and where one vendor might go high for X client, they may go low for Y client – using the same user base (yep, it happens).
I’m saying, on average across the board, depending on the number of users in the system before add-ons, let’s consider the street price.
As a whole, they ignore the financial red flags – the reorganisations taking place, not just at small businesses or mid-market, but at the F500, Global 2000 – the ones a lot of vendors crave.
When a re-org occurs, the departments most affected are HR, Training, L&D, Marketing, and Sales.
For us, let’s focus on Training, L&D.
What I see is blatant ignorance on the part of the vendors about the impact of reorganisations on pricing, and thus on budgets, resources (people), and what the vendor is “charging” for the system.
I always pay attention to economic data (in this case) on a global scale, then break it down by country, based on a specific level of interest and potential impact.
What I see is a clear ignorance of the financial and economic areas in relevance to buying – and thus the pricing of a system or content, etc. – as it relates to the vendor.
Two Key Factors
- Reorganisations – Resources – people – are losing their jobs. I know of companies – F500 – who have gutted their L&D department to the point that it no longer exists, or that it went from X to, say, 1 person. The same for Training. If I have gutted the department – whether it is the number of people OR no longer in existence – what impact will that have on buying a system, tool, etc?
- Budget restructuring – You think a department that has been gutted is going to pay X for a system, depending on expectations? There is a reason a lot of vendors have frozen pipes – i.e. pipelines – prospects in a hold pattern.
2025 as a whole was the worst year in the industry since COVID, based on my research.
Sure, there were vendors who beat their forecasts (financial), but a lot who did not.
And yet, if you cross-referenced those vendors who openly admitted to not hitting their initial financial targets with clients per se, I saw plenty with high price points.
Sure, they are always additional factors involved here – it is never a cause and effect; however, ignorance shouldn’t be a driver.
2026 still shows, at least in the early going, that the financial impact is far from over and that constraints are in place.
Yet, as a whole, the market is still going up in pricing, with many who, at least today, perceive that there will be a dramatic change.
Trend Two
When reorganizations happen, unfamiliar departments, typically HRIS, often end up running training and learning systems.
Based on my analysis, the common area is HRIS – yep, those folks who lack experience in training or L&D, taking over a system that, even with a level of training, is not a priority compared to what else – that thing called their HRIS system – is a focus.
I continue to observe this happening in the L&D domain.
On the customer/partner side? Hello – marketing! Yep, those fine folks who also lack the training background.
Granted, there are plenty of systems, but from an external audience standpoint, it doesn’t come from training; the buyer is marketing.
But when you scale back, you have two areas that have usually ZERO background in L&D – and especially OD (Organisational development) and Training.
This would be like your kid who is being taught by an experienced teacher, now being taught by the person whose background and knowledge is mowing the field.
Yes – well-qualified for that role, but not having the skills, especially knowledge and experience, for the one you would want your kid to have.
Ask yourself—would you really risk letting that happen?
On the corporate side, let’s take a quick look at the content output from a system.
Creating the content, where a lot of people just upload a video and call it good.
The whole reason built-in content creators were designed in the first place was the premise that anyone without any ID experience could create a course quickly.
Quality, and let’s say the idea of ADDIE was not needed.
Now? My G-D, it’s overall horrible.
Nothing against those folks having to create it – but if you lack any knowledge around effective adult learning principles or even the use of old days ADDIE, yet the expectation of pushing out content quickly is a requirement of your day-to-day job, what would the learner expect?
For the department now overseeing it, completion rates are the focus. Quality? Who cares.
Trend Three
If HRIS, Marketing or any other department, where the person lacks any level of training or L&D, and doesn’t have the time or desire to learn about it in-depth, what does the vendor do about it?
They ignore it – by making it non-user-friendly, challenging, with bad output of data not relevant to the actual learning story, or streamlined to the point that the relevant information isn’t being understood.
This is a big problem in the industry, not just L&D, but customer training/partner enablement – anything around selling content to an external audience.
Rather than recognising what is taking place, vendors just go with steady-as-you-go.
Ok, one AI piece here – this can rapidly change that – but you still need to have a basic 101 understanding of AI, how it works to benefit the admin; however, it does not replace the lack of training or L&D knowledge, or what those numbers say or should say.
You can teach that, but then, if you are a vendor beyond your initial training, why should you invest your time in doing so?
An issue that many vendors see as a way to sell more training: just send someone to watch some videos, read a FAQ, or, even worse, use a chatbot that irks people even more.
VENDORS, you need to wake up to the reality of what is happening in the audience, and let’s dive into those folks who are running L&D or Training and their level of knowledge with this thing called e-learning (online learning)
Trend Four
Level of knowledge and background experience regarding the benefits and reasons for utilizing e-learning compared to other forms of learning.
Continues to be a huge problem, impacting both sides and spilling over into the information the system provides, the UI/UX, and general challenges.
- Vendor – whoever founded the company had no clue about e-learning, didn’t spend enough time learning about it, didn’t hire the people who do have that in-depth knowledge necessary – If acquired by a PE – same issue – it’s money here – learning about online learning – and what it can do, the data of relevance and so forth – ignorance. Smart people just lack the desire to get an in-depth understanding. If your CPO lacks an in-depth understanding of adult learning in e-learning, what you see as the output in terms of UI/UX for the admin, and those metrics are clear.
- The vendor has to train the person in L&D or Training on training and learning, as well as the relevant data for their use case.
- This is getting worse – I’m not talking about the folks who, due to restructuring or budget cuts, are being passed over in the system, nor about the people who are not in L&D or Training. I’m referring to those people who are expected/supposed to be the experts in L&D or Training.
If your CLO doesn’t understand the nuances of e-learning, then please explain how they should understand the importance of what the system can and cannot do.
If the head of L&D, with an OD background or knowledge, has no idea what data is really relevant and lacks in-depth insight into e-learning, what should one expect?
If the person who oversees training – or an association’s education area – who are folks that should have a background in training, many come from academia, which is fine – lack e-learning history and pluses of it, and lack the understanding of how to generate revenue at a scale they want – what should they expect?
Should they rely solely on the vendor, or should they be willing to say, “Okay, I do not know this, but I am going to spend the time to do so, because it will benefit me now and down the road, and those individuals I am training and/or providing learning to.”
What this trend shows, though, is that more folks are relying on the vendor – and thus the system itself – to do their job for them.
It is getting worse – on the vendor side – ignoring what is happening – or recognizing it and trying to figure out a way to solve it – which isn’t as easy as one thinks – and on the buyer side – failing to recognize that a system is just a tool – in a bucket of tools they need to use for effective skill-building, re-skilling, knowledge acquisition and so on.
Takeaways as a result:
a. Buyer lacks the knowledge around Training and/or L&D (again, focusing solely on those people who were hired to run L&D/Training)
b. The vendor who is expected to know adult learning, online learning, and what is taking place with new aspects in the industry and where it is heading, or willing to actually send their people to learn it – I find most salespeople lack this – the training background or L&D and even whatever is tied around the system.
c. The cycle – where a vendor relies on the client to tell them what they want or need; and the vendor then becomes the student, and not the teacher.
I want to be clear – this is happening and getting worse.
There are ways to resolve this, but what I see on the vendor side is almost indifference, where they, supposedly the experts, assume that people using the system, or starting to use it, know more than they do.
On the buyer side – again, with L&D and Training backgrounds – have the knowledge necessary and expect the vendor to have the expertise and knowledge to deliver what you need.
Nobody is going to have all the answers, but if a vendor has to tell the person overseeing L&D/Training which data in the learning system is relevant to them, that is not a good sign.
If they have to explain why mentoring is more valuable than coaching, then you would expect the vendor to know that.
Especially if the vendor is using AI to do so, there is data out there, which explains why mentoring is going to be highly relevant, more so than coaching, in the workforce with those folks using AI in day-to-day roles.
Bottom Line
Trends can go up or down.
And those down don’t mean they have to stay there forever.
They can change.
In our industry, as in many others, technology is constantly evolving, and how we learn through content consumption is evolving too, but a few things remain the same.
One cannot go forward without having the knowledge or understanding of the past.
And if one has to rely on the vendor in this case, to be such the purveyor of information and guidance, then that teacher should do so.
It isn’t an expectation.
It’s a requirement.
To HELP – I will be publishing this week as a downloadable document with questions to ask your vendor to assess their knowledge of adult learning principles, effectiveness, and understanding of online learning. To provide you with some insight, I will ask you to reach out to me, because if I include it directly in the document, some vendors will just regurgitate it to potential buyers.
I will let folks know on LinkedIn when the document is available and will update this post as well.
E-Learning 24/7
Immersive Learning: In a kit – One-Box-Solution
Over the holidays, I subscribed to Paramount+ and started watching Bar Rescue (nearly addictive, mind you).
Basically, an expert named Jon Taffer goes into bars that are failing, as in on their last legs, and “rescues” them.
Some follow through with his plans and methods and see results, short and long-term.
Others not so much.
What I did pick up is that he repeats over and over again (not the ‘you’re a blank blank’ or ‘an idiot’ catchphrases), rather the lack of training.
Constantly training.
I never really thought about training bartenders in a bar setting.
I had assumed, wrongly, that there are seasoned bartenders who do not know how to make common drinks, let alone seasonal/upcoming drinks, or even a whisky sour.
Bartender, the word seems to be passe, whereas there are folks who are mixologists – connoisseurs that can train folks on a variety of drinks, along with interacting with the customer, proper safety techniques too.
When you look at the bars, they lose money by overpouring, not charging (what a surprise), and just by indifference.
The owners, for the most part, lack experience owning and running a business profitably and successfully, even with roadblocks such as competition or maintaining the business.
Leadership is a non-starter. Training? Forget about it.
These folks never thought to themselves, perhaps I should take a course on leadership, basic business skills, or owning a business.
They never considered going to the SBA, which offers on-site seminars, e-learning, exercises, tools and very valuable insights.
Instead, the owners winged it (I won’t discuss their kitchen conditions, but now I always check health reports).
Taking a dive (no pun intended), I found many online courses covering bartending skills, how to make X drinks, certifications, and more.
Not one, though, took into consideration or accounted for the ineffectiveness of applying these learning skills/training techniques in a real-world, real-life experience.
If I can’t make a certain drink and I overpour during a stress test (something the show does), I may take an online bartending course—often video-based, like YouTube.
But how can I retain those skills in a high-pressure, fast-paced environment?
Besides the need to train on a bi-monthly basis, any of these locations, independent or franchise, could leverage immersive learning in a box.
That’s right, everything you need comes in a box. The headsets, the content, take it out, and off you go.
The kit provides constant updates to pre-set content tailored to specific training needs and tasks.
I’ve seen what something like this can do and deliver actionable results.
A company called Kilo, owned by a good friend of mine (transparency here), focuses only on maritime.
That’s it.
Immersive learning in a kit.
The product? VASCO.
The U.S. Navy uses it. Ditto on the British Navy. Ditto on various cruise ships. And the list goes on.
If a company like Kilo can deliver a turnkey, immersive solution for ongoing training and learning—not just safety standards—why can’t another provider create a similar solution targeted to a specific niche?
Too many companies that jump into immersive learning try to cast a wide net across different verticals, which requires higher customization costs and limits the exposure and success of programs at scale.
This, to me, has always been a huge problem.
I’m not referring to immersive learning authoring tools – because it still limits to the area at hand, and I have never seen one that you look at and scream, “OMG”.
Plus, there is this issue with the headsets and who is paying for them, how to get them, and so forth.
Sure, you can purchase an immersive learning platform – but immersive isn’t about having or using it on a mobile device (as an option) – it’s about those headsets – and someday, better and lower cost headsets.
I’ve seen immersive learning for safety subjects, such as how to use a forklift, but does it deliver it in an ongoing experience, or is it static, and again, tailored to the company that wants it, increasing costs for the company seeking it?
The best ones I’ve seen are not cheap.
They are not turnkey, ready to go, or equipped with ongoing updates delivered in various ways—even when, as with Kilo, you are out at sea.
This swings me back to bars, and yes, it can easily be other forms of retail or hospitality—but specifically for that niche, out-of-the-box and ready to go.
We all want to help our people learn.
For ongoing development, immersive learning tools tailored to each niche—such as bartending, retail, or quick-service restaurants—could equip owners and staff with the skills needed for their unique environments.
Leadership in a bar, for example, differs considerably from managing an office, and immersive solutions can address these differences effectively.
Bottom Line
Watching those episodes made it clear: immersive learning solutions, especially those delivered out of the box with all necessary equipment, have the potential to address many persistent problems in the bar and hospitality industry.
Watching someone showing you how to make a Margarita, and then you are practicing it – right at the bar – and the owner watching his beverage being tossed, until the person gets it correct – is fine.
But to achieve synthesis, comprehension, and retention, the combination isn’t going to happen from watching a video in these settings.
Immersive is meant to offer a real-time, real-world learning environment—one that includes everything from rude customers and loud, dirty places to the challenges of being not just a bartender or server, but potentially a mixologist, manager, or even an owner.
And owners can work in a virtual, immersive setting without having to watch a video or read text, and miss out on what is needed in 2026, not in 2025.
The world continues to change.
Businesses are failing.
Costs are rising, and the skills we taught are missing because their combination—video, static text, and AI-based role-plays—only takes someone so far.
Can this be achieved: that role-playing angle and the real-time, real-life immersive learning capability?
I argue yes.
And the best way to kick it off is to follow a Kilo-like approach.
Out of the box, ready to go.
E-Learning 24/7
Top 10 Learning Systems for 2025: Rankings and Insights
There’s an old saying that one award is just like another. Wait, there isn’t? Okay, well, a lot of folks, for whatever reason, seem to think that if one analyst goes this way and another goes that way, then why is that?
As if we all follow the same methodology and approach?
When you train someone, there are some basics there, but how the person overseeing the training will differ.
Ditto when you provide learning.
It is not as if we are all the same flavor of ice cream, or ice cream with different concoctions, which, at the end of it, is really ice cream.
This is the part where people bounce immediately down to the top 10, and I totally respect that.
Nevertheless, some want more specifics.
Here they are.
You will see multiple ties. I use an approach that, if vendor X ends up with, say, 140 points (out of 150), and two others have the exact point total, it is a tie.
It is not that one is X rank, then the next is a different rank, and so on.
They are not alpha in order with ties, because yeah, I could do that – but that isn’t me, plus it adds some intrigue. Why? Why does he do that?
To antagonize you.
Factors to ensure a level playing field.
It isn’t fair to compare a system that focuses solely on customer training and nothing else, and thus will lack specific capabilities that a combo – customer and L&D would possess.
Nor is it fair to compare a system that zeroes in on compliance to systems that offer compliance (which pretty much everyone does, good or bad).
A compliance solo system is going to lack quite a bit, including a state-of-the-art UI/UX. The same applies to training management systems – the goal is all around scheduling.
Those systems have advanced scheduling capabilities, and nothing more.
Far beyond what the market as a whole – combo and training do.
The variance only occurs if said X vendor has a deep integration with said X training management platform, or has decided to align with it. I’ve seen only one system do this, and even then, it is an ongoing process.
System Rankings in General
I looked at a lot of options, capabilities, and items – that you may consider or not.
Some of this information is not public – for example, customer training and support by X vendor. As I always note, support is the #1 reason people leave or hate a system and stay (it’s complicated), and yet, the buyer will toss 300 questions around security and maybe one or two around support – and they are never the “meat” of what you need to know.
The cost of a system wasn’t considered.
Simply put, the price point they initially pitch is retail. Nobody pays retail.
Vendors will say, “We won’t go lower,” – okay, then I will go elsewhere – you see how easy that is?
Anyway, not relevant to me. Nor is it the number of clients they have.
I have no idea if they are super selective with minimum numbers of buyers, or if you can look over the counter and are breathing, we will take you.
The names – big names? Happy for them, plays great in marketing – but everyone gets a big name or two.
Nobody ever asks if the vendor is exclusive – meaning they are the only learning system with said big name?
Number of users? Not relevant.
If they have high scores on G2, TrustRadius, etc., it’s great for marketing. But that’s it. (Oh, they are seeing an increase in AI bots on these sites – and hey, did you know you can get a gift card by leaving a comment? I was offered one, only because I requested to see one of the systems that happens to be on there.)
I mention all of the above because again, there is this perception that for me, this info is relevant.
It’s not.
The Top 10
I based it on 20 categories, including forward-thinking capabilities.
The latter is crucial in my opinion. Innovation and drive are a must today.
Not an exception.
The systems are from all over the world (United States, UK, Ireland, Canada, Denmark, France, and technically Italy – long story).
They represent the best of the best to me.
From small business to large enterprise.
From all customer training/education, to combo systems.
From deskless specific as the core, to deskless as a component.
From specific verticals to many verticals.
This year alone, for the first time, two of the top three vendors are based in Canada (founded and central HQ).
Keys to those acronyms you will see – (FAL) – If you see this, it means the vendor is on FindAnLMS.
It was, and still is, not a requirement to be included in the tallies.
- Combo – they play in L&D and Customer Training/Education – this is the majority of the industry
- L&D – Focus heavily on employees (industry privately refers to this as ‘internal’)
- Customer – Focus only on customer training/education, partner training, and similar – think B2B – I slide associations under this, but only if the association is trade. Professional can be B2B or B2C.
- Partner Enablement – Often slides with Customer Training/Education – Thus, I put it here, and will note it as PE – for example, CT/PE would be the indicator.
- Training Consultants slide under B2B/B2C – they sell their content/services to other clients – sure, it can be solo, thus a B2B/B2C role is here.
- If the vendor plays heavy or wishes to work with frontline/deskless and does a better job than others, because everyone says this, I will note it in general.
If the client is government, then it’s L&D. If apprenticeships, then it’s L&D. If EdTech (K-12, higher education), then uh, the term is EdTech.
Therefore, you may see the following (FAL), (Combo), (EdTech)
How do I calculate small business versus large enterprise?
I went with what I see as a trend in the industry: “enterprise” returning to its legacy size. Even if the vendor angles towards enterprise, it doesn’t mean they won’t take you. I tried to mention vendors that I know have a minimum number of users, so if you are under that number, they will respectfully decline.
- Small Business 50 to 999 (if you are under 50, you are still a small business ( The acronym will be SB)
- Mid-Market (MM) 1,000 to 4,999
- Enterprise (E) 5,000 to 10,000 (I am aware that in some areas of the EU, Enterprise is 2,500 or higher)
- Large Enterprise (LE)10,001 or more
Types of Systems
- LMS – The dominant player in the industry, even if a vendor doesn’t call themselves that
- Learning Platform – Number two in the size of the industry – A learning ops platform, for example, is a learning platform; skills dev – learning platform.
- Talent Development (TD) – If they say employee development, they are TD. Learning has to be the core.
- Knowledge Management (KM) – Growing. You will see many systems across the board adding KM – think that the AI assistant component in their system. Nevertheless, there are standalones out there – as an option, or just because it is.
- LXP – Doesn’t exist anymore – I couldn’t care if a vendor says they are only that. Even the initial vendor, Degreed, isn’t that. They are a learning platform.
- TM – Training Management – Scheduling only. Zero content
- LCMS – die already.
Two items
a. There is no perfect system out there – therefore nobody scored 150/150
b. The term traditional is just a marketing term. Ignore it.
What you will see
- Award icon, followed by vendor’s name (name includes their URL – click and go)
- Acronyms
- Highlights
- Some vendors’ info will be longer than others. I tried to condense as much as I can, but yeah, I have an issue with that – this year will be different.
View the Summaries, mini-analysis and screenshot report – Click NOW
TieLemonade LXP (FAL) (SB) (MM) (E) (LE) (Combo)
There is a long story behind why they include LXP in their name; it involves the domain, and let’s move on.
This is an LMS.
Big Wins
Lots to like here, especially the clever out-of-the-box learning journey design, or a different design you wish to use on the front-end learner page.
They will help you – at no additional cost, which is a plus.
Skills play strongly here, although not as strongly as I would like – this is a balancing act – because so many people are stuck on “skills for job role,” rather than skills across the board, especially those who will need re-skilling.
I love the front-end UI/UX.
Areas of Improvement
The back end is solid, but it still needs improvement.
Analytics and Reporting are refreshing, but still need more IMO.
Unsure if they see themselves in the core of hospitality/retail, or if other verticals are more deskless/frontline-first. This is always a challenge with so many vendors.
I believe they can do better if they pick one and roll with it. It’s better to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a large pond – or whatever that saying is.
Knowledge Anywhere (FAL) (SB) (MM) (Combo) – They do business with large enterprises and enterprise clients. I see them more in the SMB range, up to, say, 1,500.
Big Wins
- Vast improvement with UI/UX – Recently did a refresh
- Streamlined but enough for many folks, especially those in the SB range and the lower end of mid-market
- Admin side is easy to use – without compromising
- Focus around blue collar, deskless/frontline – Finally, someone can take on and beat those who play solely in that area, primarily blue-collar. I think they can do well in the apprenticeship side, too.
Areas of Improvement
- Analytics needs more
- Focus is blue-collar per se, and frontline – thus mobile needs to be stronger – and I’d like to see more specifics around the blue-collar, which systems as a whole lack – so not just a call-out to KA, but again, they have, I believe, a strong opportunity here
JoySuite(MM) (Enterprise) (Large Enterprise) (L&D) (Learning Platform)- Legit AI-focused
This is a Learning Platform with a core KM, but not a full KM – it gets a bit complicated once you first see it, but it will start to make sense upon discussion with them.
It’s all about AI, assets, feedback loops – knowledge centers.
Right out of the gate, I like Neovation’s products.
Big Wins
- Prompt Library – Finally! Includes a library of pre-built, expert prompts, plus learners can create and share their own prompts.
- AI Assistant – Learners can generate custom reports, documents, and even RFPs for higher-ups.
- AI Mentor/Coach
- Nice UI/UX – Stands a bit out, due to their approach being heavy around AI, more so than many systems in the industry
- Feedback center and loop
- They refer to themselves, okay, I see this as well – Knowledge Center – whereas they list it as a strong function, I see them really as a KC – with the rest within it.
Areas of Improvement
- While they can be a standalone, they are a better fit tied into an existing central database or HCM/HRIS solution, or even another standalone – let’s say another learning platform.
- I place this as an area of improvement only because I’m concerned it could be a revamp 2.0 for those folks who still see SharePoint as the crux of their learning. SP was never designed to be utilized as a learning core, but it’s still popular on the large enterprise side, which limits audiences
- Metrics – when you tap into someone else’s platform, even if it’s an HCM, you risk the limitation of metrics that make you stand out.
- I can’t figure out if they want to be more standalone or centralized database side – there is a mix there – will it work, or will they eventually have to pick a side? Right now, they are edging towards the SP side – which is a concern.
HALIGHT (FAL) (MM) (Enterprise) (Frontline – especially retail) (L&D)
You know, when I mentioned that the majority of vendors who mention big names are not exclusive to say that big name?
Well, one of HALIGHT’s customers is all of Best Buy, the electronics store.
I admit, after seeing the system, it made sense how the electronics side of the retail segment would really work well here.
That said, the platform isn’t solely limited to consumer electronics – hence the retail aspect.
Big Wins
- UI/UX – I absolutely love the “snippets” idea, which sits on the learner home screen, where the learner (let’s say a clerk) can watch a 15-second video. Thus, other clerks can see and utilize – maybe highlighting a new product or a “how to use” angle that customers can understand – rather than just them looking at a box.
- The learner side as a whole is crisp and refreshing. Nobody will mistake this for a dullard. If I am on the retail side with deskless, I want to use this offering.
- Gamified learning with ‘point(s) economy’. Points can go to any piece in the system, the number of times you log in, look at a piece of content, upload a video, comment, etc. – It moves from the typical gamification booresville approach into a ‘point economy (love the wordage) – leveraged with gamified learning.
- Learners can onboard others by using a QR code or e-mail. Saves time and can really get this up and running on the floor (location)
- Offers SMS capabilities
Areas of Improvement
- While it offers integrations with e-mail marketing programs, I think having one built into the platform and usable (without paying 3rd party fees) makes sense.
- Look at adding digital signature capability again, without going through a third party. I’d make sure the digital signature is available on the mobile app.
- Tap into other options to embrace and expand the common clerk experience – way too many vendors and I mean A LOT ignore who is on that floor, their knowledge out of the gate in terms of what is being sold or offered – Thus a system needs to be one part knowledge, one part learning means fun and shows off as such, one part explain – output on mobile, to show customers – buyers are becoming more savvy on specific offerings, the clerk has to be too. A lot of missed opportunities here.
- Analytics can maximize revenue opportunities – again, the points economy can be used in so many ways – knowledge = sales. Happy employees, happy store.
If I were looking at Axonify, for example, I’d take a serious dive at HALIGHT. Personally, I think HALIGHT is better. Gamified learning only works when its output drives knowledge, short- and long-term.
Capacity (KM) (Enterprise, LE, SMB, Mid-Market) (Combo)
Best knowledge management platform in the industry (2025). If you are curious to know what makes a KM a KM, then dive Capacity.
While they seem to target Enterprise and large enterprises, I can easily see them being used across all audience sizes, depending on what and how you want to use the platform.
A KM requires as its foundation AI – Generative multimodal. Otherwise, you just have a chatbot.
They refer to their solution as an Answer Engine, which is applicable, but my thinking has shifted slightly to an AI Assistant.
Based on the question, it responds accordingly. It can go directly to the content and the specific area, and it includes sources.
The challenge with any AI Assistant is the presumption that identifying sources as an essential element, reinforcing that this eliminates hallucinations or, more specifically, eliminates them, though, is a false narrative.
Even with your own content, AI can create fake or false information, even with sources, because those sources are from your content, and the repetitive source validation isn’t ideal to assume accuracy.
That is the one thing that bothers me with Capacity: the continuation of stipulating no hallucinations – and yes, I have called them out repeatedly for saying so.
I do want to make it clear, though, that I see a significant number of vendors who have KM (AI Assistant or AI Engine) in their system who push the same “no hallucinations, because it’s your own content and sources.
And yep, I will and do call them out.
Let’s, though, look at what makes Capacity impressive.
Big Wins
- UI/UX – it is simple to use, regardless of skill level
- Admin settings include Synopsis as an option (nice) and the source connection using the logo – rather than just words. For example, Workday, Google Drive, etc.
- Data tracking – crucial
- Ability to create an RFP (yep) and the ability to generate a research brief
- Nearly a dozen out-of-the-box canned reports, including “teams questions, responses, and actions taken.”
- Love the internal training report, and Lucy (the name of Capacity’s AI Assistant) and its actions
- Offers a research mode
Areas of Improvement
- Lacks the “review before accepting” – relevant text line – for the record, I rarely see this in systems, even though you can go to any AI tool – LLM, SLM, even the World model, and see that it may create errors under it. Anyway, it is a huge peeve of mine.
- Needs stronger metrics and the ability to cross-reference to tap more strongly into training/learning
Tie – Learning Pool Learning Platform, Cypher Learning, and Intellum)
Learning Pool Learning Platform (FAL) (MM, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Combo)
An excellent platform that finally kicks it into overdrive. While they have some very cool AI features coming out in Q1 2026, the rankings cover 25, so let’s hit the wins.
Big Wins
- Content Blocks – Can be created using AI chatbots (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) by providing specific instructions and pasting the generated code (JavaScript, HTML, CSS) – this is on the learner side.
- DAP – Built-in Digital Adoption Platform – In the long run, an AI Assistant could easily replace it. A DAP does offer some plus capabilities for now – they offer it not only for the admin side (common) but the learner side too. Reduces significant time from a cost standpoint for support – how to do something. Over 95% of user issues are user-related, not the system. And the days of an admin doing their own Q/A (Quality Assurance) before submitting the request are gone. Hence, the DAP’s usefulness
- Events functionality that can match Training Management systems, such as Training Orchestra. No small feat. Perfect for compliance, BTW, and on-site events.
- Continuation of development for better natural language processing when using a search with AI – in other words, the end user types in typical or common usage of lingo they would type into a search on a browser. NLP is crucial with AI, and it is never a one-and-done thing.
- Auto translation of comments using AI – I think that’s pretty cool
Areas of Improvement
- The system offers the ability to be used as an LCMS – Learning Content Management Systems – which were on life support, to such an extent, that the most significant player has re-branded themselves, in multiple types of systems, including LCMS, not once but twice, and still has no idea what they are. I think folks who love SharePoint as an LMS or their learning repository love LCMS. Well, I love skiing using tennis rackets as skis. Doesn’t mean I should.
- I like the building blocks of the system approach, but it can easily lead you down rabbit holes if you are not careful. This system screams advanced metrics based upon what it can do, and will do around compliance, tapped into skills, even ILT. It’s missing that.
Cypher Learning (FAL) (SB, MM, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Combo skews more towards L&D)
Big Wins
- Outstanding AI system, in the top three for the industry
- AI content creator is quite good, albeit sometimes it can get a bit confusing, especially with the mind map (that is what I call it, you can say tree branches – it reminds me more of something I would see in academia, then say corporate – I know they will disagree)
- UI/UX is easy to use and is designed effectively on the learner side
- Lists the text about potential errors/mistakes and verify it is correct before accepting (except in one area, see below in Areas of Improvement)
- Streamlined
- Continuous AI enhancements – They know what they are doing with AI, but I’m not sold on the Copilot thing
Areas of Improvement
- Their AI Assistant, which scans the system and outputs responses, never mentions the text of potential mistakes and verification – CL will note the “it is your own content,” and sources pitch.
- AI Agents offer potential, but I am still trying to figure out how an AI will benefit the learner, from a training standpoint. I mean, do I want my agent to be a co-worker (an agent premise)?
- Analytics need to be better. This system offers a lot, therefore lots of capabilities, especially with multimodal AI, which means to me better metrics and reporting.
Intellum (FAL) (Enterprise/Large Enterprise) (Customer Training, Partner Enablement) (B2B/B2C)
I’d argue that the most prominent players (elite tier in the customer training/education/partner offerings are Thought Industries, Eurekos, Docebo, Absorb, Pifini, and Intellum.
For whatever reason, a lot of folks are unaware of Intellum, and I’d say it is likely due to a series of factors, including the minimum number of learners they will accept (5,000). That’s a challenge when you are, say, a training consultant, or going from brick to online.
Big Wins
- Metrics that align to customer training – the #1 goal for the majority of folks that offer customer training is to generate $$$. You need to know the correct numbers to determine what is working and what isn’t. Data intelligence is crucial. Intellum scores well here.
- Agentic Agents – Creator (creates content), Manager, and Learner (Personal Tutor, Identifies gaps and areas to improve, with practice and knowledge checks) (Learner is rolling out in early Q1)
- Intellum Labs – Think of an early stage of what is coming out new feature-wise, beta, that an admin can jump into, test out, and see – Reminds me of the Google Labs, or any platform that says “labs” as in beta – My preference would be a word change since it can be mistaken for practice learning.
- Natural Language Reports
Areas of Improvement
- UI/UX needs a major refresh (Good news – that is on their roadmap for 2026)
- Agentic Agent data metrics are crucial – what’s the point of having them if you are not leveraging them for customer intelligence
Tie – Pifini (Formally known as NetExam+), and Digital Chalk
Pifini (FAL) (Enterprise) (Large Enterprise) (Customer Training, Partner Enablement)
Big Wins
- Metrics that align with customer/partner training/education, even folks that are training consultants – Data wise with AI – #1 for 2025
- AI metrics include learning impacts on revenue performance, deal progression, product usage, and support (perfect for clients where support impacts revenue, and it does – cost-wise, plus usage on the product side)
- Focused solely on the customer training segment (it’s rare these days that the system’s entire customer base is in the CT side – only one other vendor in the rankings aligns as well)
- UI/UX is solid
- AI Role-playing – real-life scenarios partially, AI Coach
- Their AI tools are also available as a standalone – for those that want them, but do not want the system (personally, I see their strength within the system itself, but that’s just my vibe)
Areas of Improvement
- Certification programs are huge money makers – I’d like to see Pirfini tap into that, with best practices within the system, and setting up various programs with suggestions from AI (with text included)
- Tap stronger into recognition that the majority of people providing customer training/partner enablement lack basics around profit margin, etc – the use of AI can provide that with NLP – and ongoing with that – so I can say, “If I want to make 35% profit to break even, what should I charge for my courses?” Even dive deeper with competitive insight – perhaps with an option to go “external” if the admin clicks it.
Digital Chalk (FAL) (MM) (Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Customer Training, Partner Enablement)
Big Wins
- #1 for Mid-Market 2025
- Stronger customer training and partner enablement functionality – WIN!
- Robust functionality and capabilities
- Compliance Strong – A lot of compliance capabilities and a vendor who I believe can continue to enhance
- UI/UX – a solid refresh
- Strategic Delivery – This means they hit their roadmap with high accuracy (something that every vendor should strive for)
Areas of Improvement
- Skill empowerment – Again, this is something a lot of vendors struggle with, but DC could expand more.
- For a mid-market solution, there are potential wins here that can be leveraged as the system develops. There are growth opportunities.
- Admin capabilities with metrics need to go to the next level.
NovoEd Learn+, Practice+ (with add-on Mentor+) (Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (L&D)
They slide into the enterprise base of 5,000 that is seeing a rebirth in the market (it used to be the range in the early days, and vendors moved away; quite a few are seeing “Enterprise” in the 5,000 to 10,000 user base range)
When you purchase NovoEd Learn, you will get Practice+ in the system. P+ is outstanding, with significant potential.
Mentor+ is truly a mentoring platform, available as an add-on in the system or as a standalone.
The #6 is for Learn+ and Practice+, but I included Mentor+ because of the system’s full capabilities.
Big Wins
- Practice+ – Legit practice, real-world, real-life scenarios for all types of business skills. Many sim labs focus only on technical skills. Practice+ is business-driven
- AI mentor – Outstanding. Could someone use the mentor as a coach? Sure, but every research data point is showing that as AI continues into the workplace, mentoring – mentors, will be more important than a coach
- Wonderful UI/UX
- Forward-Thinking – you want this with a vendor
- Elite support and training
- Solid metrics
Areas of Improvement
- I’d like to see mentor+ included in the system, rather than an add-on. Keep the standalone as an option, but IMO suites are the future of our industry, primarily due to uncertainty around economics, and the impact it has on L&D and Training
- Stronger metrics – Solid is good, but I want more around Practice+ – which to me is the gold here, beyond what other vendors can do when it comes to real-world scenarios that are not just some avatar talking to you with a background that has nothing to do with the scenario
- The system needs to tell me my learning story (I will say that when it comes to the systems in general, I find that customer training systems – elite tier do this more than those that are combo or L&D focus)
Tie
LearnUpon (FAL) (Combo, top tier in Association, strong in CT) (Small Business, Mid-Market, Enterprise)
Big Wins
- Learning Live (Their term) – I like that folks can use a QR code to sign up/register – this is nice for ILT, and a twist when it comes to webinars
- Course recommender (machine learning-based) suggests courses based on individual and group behavior patterns – The behavior patterns are the key here
- Brings in Agentic AI, plus the use of Bedrock (Model as a Self Service – the premise is that, depending on the use case, Bedrock will select the best AI model for that use case). I’m a massive proponent of MaSS (there are others out there)
- Various options are visible on the home Learner screen, including showing “live sessions” as one such option
- Improvement in metrics and admin UI/UX
Area of Improvement
- The home page is static, so you can’t say move the calendar down the screen, and something like learning not yet started higher up
- White-label (your own brand) is available in only two editions: Premium and Enterprise. This should be included in all versions (I will note that many systems charge you to remove their name, so white-label is an add-on. Yes, this makes no sense.)
- While improving in metrics, LearnUpon is a combo, and yet, they slide user-wise on the CT – the metrics, though, do not validate this to the extent that they can. At some point, LU will need to decide which is the better route to go when it comes to data intelligence and UI/UX to match it
- A couple of areas, with AI – they refer to their Assistant as “Leah”, have potential, but they lack the text of mistakes/elements; they also have a current partnership with easyGenerator for content creator with AI, and yet, they acquired a content authoring tool, which will be available in their system. I am unsure why they would want to continue the partnership with EG when they will have their own built-in content tool (which can also be purchased as a stand-alone).
360Learning (FAL) (Small Business, Mid-Market, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Combo)
Big Wins
- They dumped the whole LXP focus angle, which many potential buyers and even competitors mentioned to them. This is an LMS with the usual content capabilities around the LXP thing, which is thankfully starting to go down the drain as a standalone term.
- Focus turns to deskless/frontline workers/manufacturing workers, including blue collar – This is a big win – a lot of vendors say they hit and do well here, but very few really do – you need a strong mobile app to achieve – 360 does
- Some items in the mobile app – Learners can see their certifications, can use a QR Code, app has on/off synch, high scores in Android and Apple stores – constantly updated (make no mistake, way too many systems’ apps do not score high, and updating and features are underwhelming – heck some vendors still do not have a mobile app, let alone on/off synch)
- On the manufacturing side, 360 supports union and non-union environments. The union one is huge. The capabilities tied to unions are crucial; 360 delivers. For example, Different training or acknowledgment/workflows can be set up for union vs. non-union workers, ensuring compliance with negotiated terms. Achieved using grouping plus the custom field rules.
- IP address filtering – Love it. Helps with training data intelligence – and accuracy
- Gamified learning – WIN!
Areas of Improvement
- Some common Virtual and ILT capabilities are missing. They are projected to roll them out in 2026. Still waitlist, has been around for more than 15 years.
- Metrics are underwhelming – this system is all about the frontline, and yet, customer training/partner enablement (see that word again) is a use case. Fine, but next we have L&D. Pick a lane. I think deskless, especially frontline and blue-collar (not a lot of vendors do well in this area, heck, let alone zero-in), is the real play here. The metrics, though, lack that, even when it comes to the mobile app data points that can honestly tell me the learning story.
- UI/UX needs improvement on the admin side. It will work for a lot of folks, and they have done a refresh, but another refresh (coming this year – 2026) tells me they are on the right track. The awards, though, are in 2025.
- Lack of baseline skill ratings in the system – it is an add-on (fee). Should be included and free.
BizLMS with Biz Skills (FAL) (Small Business, Mid-Market, Enterprise), (L&D)
Big Wins
- You get a lot with this system – streamlined but robust – easy to use
- The skills capabilities are beyond outstanding -including skills mapping (a pain point for anyone who has to do this – manually. With Biz, it is done for you – using machine learning as a component) and skills development through scenarios
- Skill metrics that make sense and will tell your learning story
- Good UI/UX
- Flexible curated content model
- Admin dashboard is very useful and beneficial – Easy to understand – (crucial)
Areas of Improvement
- Enhanced AI functionality is coming in 26 – Gen AI; I wish at least something, such as an AI mentor, was available in 2025; nevertheless, when it rolls out, it will include real-life, real-world scenarios for learning and training.
- I like the UI/UX, but I believe it needs a refresh
- BizSkills is an add-on, I’d like to see it included at no charge, think of a suite here for Biz – This is where it can really shine. I should add that nowadays, many vendors charge for skills development and management. Personally, I’m not a fan of it.)
- System screams gamified learning – perfect piece IMO
Eurekos (FAL) (100% Customer/Partner training/education), (Associations, Mid-Market, Enterprise, Large Enterprise)
Big Wins
- #2 Customer Training for 2025
- Metrics/data intelligence for CT is exceptional (such as meta-level analytics)- it tells me the story
- Very rare vendor that truly bills monthly for active users – this means you get an invoice for that month, and pay at that time; the industry in general pitches MAU, but you pre-pay – i.e., pay ahead of time. Trust me, none of those vendors who do that are Nostradamus, and there are no refunds in the market.
- Video admin module (Nice)
- Can use the system not just B2B, but also B2C
- Enhanced personalized storefronts
- Refresh of UI/UX with Dashboards
- Adding skills capabilities for CT
- Subscription bundling
Areas of Improvement
- AI is arriving in 2026 – I would have preferred to have seen something in 2025; however, knowing Eurekos, when they roll out their AI, it will deliver actionable results for customer/partner use cases.
- Refresh of UI on the learner side – the UX is there – it’s the UI that needs a tweak.
- Enhancements for Gamified Learning
The Final Three – Okay, there is a tie for #3 – again based on total points; then a tie at #2, and then the #1 system for 2025.
Tie – Docebo, Thought Industries, D2L (Business)
Docebo (FAL) (Mid-Market, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Combo, but user base in CT/Partner Enablement) is higher than L&D; that said, the system skews L&D.
Big Wins
- AI Capabilities – Harmony – think AI Assitant (many more features are coming in 2026); however early rollouts that are wins – Vertical Search – you can limit your search by specific content types (additional items such as course types like SCORM rolls out in 2026); option to restrict to system content types only OR ability to include web searches – they offer you a choice) – Oh, they have the text letting you know that Harmony can make mistakes – a big PLUS, and thank you for adding the text, along with verifying before accepting
- Harmony Admin Co-Pilot – What it can do is very useful and will continue to be for admins
- AI Content Creator and Virtual Coach (more on this further down)
- Was lagging with AI, now moving into an AI-first focus system (you will see this in 26, far more than what exists in 25)
- Skills development and management capabilities
- Solid compliance
- Subscription bundling
- Solid metrics
Areas of Improvement
- UI/UX refresh needed on the learner and admin side
- Harmony’s full capabilities have the potential to be a monster win – but since the awards focus on 2025, what is available is limited, and again, they seemed to be late to the party – even though they had a strong AI team in place at a point in 2025.
- Icons for SCORM and xAPI aren’t needed, most folks have no idea what it is – nor do they care – I did mention this to them – I hope they dump
- Metrics – Data intelligence (they are improving this in 2026)
- Needs to go suite here, rather than add-on options
- If you want a virtual coach, a content creator, or additional fees using credits – basically, they are pushing the cost onto you. I get it, and while I have no problem with additional fees using credits, the market as a whole is not charging for a content creator (except those that see it as an add-on, which I am not a fan of)
- Flow of Work – I always felt the module was a dud, so it’s not really an area of improvement; more of a ‘get rid of this’ – I mean, is it a need for CT? When it comes to product training?
- Certification program can be a lot stronger – so many options here
- Skills development has vastly improved – I want more – I believe Harmony can deliver this, whether they tap into it is another question
Thought Industries (FAL) (Combo – heavily focused on CT/PE, system skews to CT/PE), (Mid-Market, Enterprise, Large Enterprise)
Big Wins
- Metrics for Customer Training/Partner Enablement that continue to push the envelope. Capabilities include using pre-built (canned) or custom reports to track engagement, identify unmet needs, and drive revenue growth.
- Ability to integrate learning analytics with business intelligence tools to directly access and query data on everything from onboarding surveys to subscription purchases, with refresh rates close to real-time. (More on this in a second)
- 100% headless architecture option – no cost. They are one of the very few vendors that truly offer 100% headless, despite others who claim to. The offering is called Helium.
- Reporting hub – Executive Summary (HUGE) – as in love with it
- Update a course to maintain metadata, page content, and key settings programmatically – ideal for scale
- Continued improvement with Panorama multi-tenancy
- Create content using Generative AI (more on this in a second)
Areas of Improvement
- I have always liked TI’s UI/UX on the learner side – it has a luxury feeling to it; that said, it needs a refresh, ditto on the admin side – lots there, but refreshes are always a must (a vendor should always do a refresh every two years – IMO)
- Content Creator is an additional cost – It should be included at no extra fees – I mean, to me, it is like getting a car, and then they say, “Oh, you want tires with that?” – Any learning system needs content, which, while a commodity, drives the platform. Without it, you have an FTP or a paper manual
- Panorama is an additional fee, too – I just don’t get it. Include X number of tenants for free – you want a competitive advantage? It’s starting right at you.
- Data intelligence – advanced for free – again, CT/PE is a market every vendor wants into (okay, the majority) – lead the pack, not sit in the middle – just my take
D2L (FAL) (Mid-Market, Enterprise, Association, Large Enterprise, CT/PE)
Big Wins
- Best in Class 2025 – AI Content Creator
- #1 Learning System in the Association market
- Performance Plus – Which is their advanced analytics tool – This rocks – the name? Yeah, confusing and needs a rebrand. They charge extra for PP – but wow, it should be included. One of the best I’ve ever seen in the space – lead the pack, as I say, lead the pack.
- Lumi Assistant – This is their AI component – it packs a whallop and is definitely top 10 for 2025. A couple of notable wins – ability integrate with external knowledge bases, such as an association’s course catalog or internal documentation
- Very robust with lots of options
- Admin functionality effective
Areas of Improvement
- PP should be pushed into the system itself, and the out-of-the-box metrics removed. The system is too good for canned metrics’ appearance
- Refresh the front-end UI/UX and make back-end modifications. I’m not talking about a lot here, thankfully, just user-driven. This ties directly to where the industry is heading, and what is being seen already
- More Lumi – I personally believe Lumi is an untapped gold mine, and yes, I understand AI is an ongoing process, but is Agentic the be-all and end-all? I think that the world model will overtake artificial general intelligence (AGI) at least for the time being. AGI sounds great, it just isn’t fully here yet.
- Suites are going to be “in” – again, a new business enviroment impacting L&D and Training, plus the companies as a whole, one day the person can be there, the next someone else – no one is forcing them to use everything; but what if the new person wants X and can’t get it without paying extra – where are you/they going to be? Budget restructuring is happening across the board. I think D2L is sitting on an opportunity that is ready to be unleashed
- Reporting – I’d like to see more canned (out-of-the-box) reports (generally speaking, the industry needs to increase out-of-the-box reports)
Tie – You have the #1 Learning System for Large Enterprise, and the #2 system for Enterprise.
The #1 system for skills management/capabilities, and AI; and the #2 system for AI, which, based on what I know, is rolling out in 26, could become #1.
Both systems have add-ons, and while one makes total sense, I’d still think the larger win is the suite with one, the other, well, we will talk about that.
Cornerstone Learn (FAL) (MM, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (Combo – skews heavy towards L&D – Talent Development) (#2 Learning System in 2024)
Big Wins
- Leading system for AI – #1 in 2025 – read more here
- #1 (two-time winner) for Large Enterprise – especially 50,000 and more end-users
- You get a lot when you buy Learn – including a robust LMS, best-in-class and best skills management capabilities (more on that in a sec), Digital Adoption Platform (exists within the LMS), to name just a few
- Super strong in compliance – A dominant player in the industry
- Learning Suite
- Strong UI/UX on the learner side – This is heavily targeted by competitors who claim it is dated, and traditional – I have no idea when they last saw the learner side, but I can tell you, those claims are false – It’s good, easy to use, and massively improvement on navigation and capabilities
- Immersive Learning offering
- Content studio on the admin side – uses AI, another massive YOWSA and WOWSA
- Mentoring strength capabilities
- Metrics and Reporting
- White-labeling is included
- Adoption is quickly based on use case – employee side – yes, this ties into AI – but they are moving at the speed to do it
- UI/UX improvement on the admin side – there is a lot there
Areas of Improvement
- Advanced skills data-predictive intelligence for learning/training is in another module called “Transform” – this should be in Learn. I understand if this needs to go as an add-on price-wise for Learn, but that word “Suite” places Advanced Insights using AI in Learn – included
- Some tweaks with Content Anytime – this is a 3rd party content marketplace – which many vendors offer BTW – not uh the Cornerstone aggregator, but say they use GO1 or Open Sesame, or they do it themselves – you still purchase the content for that provider or a buffet style – anyway, aggregators always face the same issues when it comes to best in class content – I think Cornerstone’s version has the opportunity to really push ahead here
- Continues to focus on UX for the admin functionality. They have made major inroads here, but the biggest knock is the cumbersome aspect. It’s always a challenge with a lot of systems – you can do robust without “requiring, in some cases, a learning curve.”
- Metrics UI/UX needs a major overhaul. I feel that the design is dated – where is the latest with data visualization? Where is the “pop”?
Learn Amp (FAL) (SMB,MM, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (TD – Talent Development – they refer to it as employee development), (#1 learning system in 2024) – This is for Core.
Learn Amp offers multiple versions, a starter called Spark (which bills monthly, and is ideal for Small Business, say under 500), Core – the Mid-Market and higher edition – and the one focused here, and then two add-ons – Perform, which has a higher level for skills, along with a stronger tier of performance management. and Advanced, which offers a variety of capabilities, including elite data intelligence for your learning and training, without having to go and add your own BI tool.
Big Wins
- Understands the AI landscape technically – tech stack-wise, AI agentic-wise, Natural Language side, and the latest in regards to AI that will enhance a learning system for your learners
- Outstanding UI/UX on the Learner and Admin side
- Example of robust without being cumbersome on the Admin view and capabilities
- Advanced level option (included in the system) for the Learner view – lots of widgets, design in general – no additional cost
- AI content creator
- Fantastic support team – especially the implementation group and training
- Strong, powerful with compliance, CPD – referred sometimes in the states as CEU (Continuing Performance Development – CPD; CEU – continuing education units)
- Skills development out of the box
- Solid canned metrics and reports
Areas of Improvement
- Pay extra for white-label (should be included at no-charge; again a lot of vendors charge for white label – do you really want to see the vendor name along with your Widget U?)
- Advanced metrics additional cost – This is all about taking control – yeah, I may not use it – but with effective support/training – I can see the benefits of doing so – in today’s world, it is all about data intelligence for learning/training – to validate budgetary items – and drive success – quickly and more efficently. Here you go.
- Slight refresh on the Admin side
- Add more capabilities for employee development/workforce, especially around frontline/deskless workers and blue-collar – there is a lot of opps here
- Add a mobile app – I mention this every year – I still am baffled as to why they haven’t done so. They have explained why – but it’s now 2026. It’s odd to me that a company that really has impressive AI capabilities and continues to push and know the next tier, still hasn’t added a mobile app.
Absorb LMS (FAL) (Small Business, Mid-Market, Enterprise, Large Enterprise) (#1 for customer training/partner enablement; #2 for AI “Best in Class”, #2 for Enterprise, #2 for frontline/deskless workers, including blue-collar) (#1 for Associations, #1 for Suites)
Absorb has really gone and taken their system to the next level.
I’ve been totally impressed with this system, what it can do, the UI/UX overall, capabilities, AI of course, and being a learning suite – which again, no need to repeat – but I will – suites will be big in 26 (yes, the awards are for 25, but you get my drift).
Big Wins
- You get it all – from AI to upskilling to advanced metrics – training and L&D data intelligence; out of the box – user-friendly; top-tier support and training, gamified learning, content creator, and more
- Together, which is included and is a major player in the mentoring space, was acquired by Absorb. Easily in the top three for mentoring, and it is included in the LMS at no additional charge; it is and will still be available as a standalone, too. This is mentoring at its finest.
- E-commerce – totally rocks
- If you want compliance, the system has it, solid job
- Gamified learning and social are strong plays here (more on gamified in a second)
- They refer to themselves as a strategic learning system – for once, as it relates to marketing – I totally agree – this system says what it can do, and delivers it.
- Massive list of integrations/connectors (a lot of vendors offer this as well) – I just like their approach to it
- Slick UI/UX on the learner and admin side; the advanced metrics, and okay metrics/reporting in general have a very easy to view and extract by viewing learner/training data intelligence – the visualization is great
- Lots of capabilities for frontline workers – including a mobile app with on/off synch
Areas of Improvement
- A refresh on the learner side – Look, I’d say the market as a whole needs refreshing on the learner side, simply because vendors follow trends like a “Netflix”- like appearance. I think there are other ways to do this – and offer a variety of options out of the box based on use case, especially when it comes to customer training vs L&D internal – ditto with deskless/frontline workers – heck even target audience – should a retail look be the same as manufacturing?
- Gamified Learning – needs to go to the next tier – everyone has leaderboards, badges, point totals – while I do like the ranking of compliance, for example, GL is going to be a big winner in 26, especially with the variance of audiences, internal and external.
- More of More – what is next? When you are #1, you have to continue on. I see so much that is out there, untapped in the industry, despite a heavy need for it – and I’m not limited to AI here – clearly a big play, though.
Bottom Line
There you go. The Top 10 Learning Systems for 2025.
To view and download this post, which includes screenshots (all the vendors were given this option, there are those who demurred at present) – anyway, just an fyi there. Oh, “report” includes a Summary generated by AI (verified by me) and takeaways generated by AI (verified as accurate by me).
Download will be available tomorrow – Jan 8th, 2026!
E-Learning 24/7
Estimated reading time: 38 minutes
