How we score online course platforms
Each online course platform is scored 0–100 on the criteria below, compared with rivals on sale now. BuyScore is the weighted average. We have researched 3 so far.
Criteria and weights
| Criterion | What we look at | Weakest acceptable evidence | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|
| Course building and delivery | Score completeness and flexibility of course structure, lessons, media, drip, assessments, certificates and practical authoring controls. 0–20: core course building is absent or unreliable. 21–40: major authoring or delivery gaps. 41–60: covers standard lesson delivery, but key tools or control are limited. 61–80: broad course formats and useful assessment, drip or completion tools, with manageable gaps. 81–100: flexible, coherent authoring and delivery across common creator needs, supported by independent user evidence. | Current official feature documentation plus two independent product reviews or owner reports that directly address course construction, lessons or assessments. If the evidence is only a feature list, label those claims as vendor-stated. | 20 |
| Learner experience and engagement | Assess access, navigation, playback, mobile learning, community and feedback. 0–20: major barriers to consuming a course. 21–40: basic access with substantial friction. 41–60: functional core learning experience with notable gaps. 61–80: clear, dependable learner workflow and useful engagement features. 81–100: consistently polished, accessible and engaging experience across devices, supported by independent reports. Do not infer instructional quality from the platform. | Current vendor documentation plus two independent owner or learner sources that specifically discuss student access, navigation, mobile or engagement. | 15 |
| Sales, payments and monetization | Assess checkout, product formats, coupons, bundles, subscriptions, tax handling, affiliates and fee clarity. 0–20: selling or payment essentials are missing. 21–40: substantial friction or costly restrictions. 41–60: workable checkout with meaningful fee or commerce trade-offs. 61–80: good creator-sales toolkit and transparent costs, with limited gaps. 81–100: flexible, predictable commerce for common creator business models with strong independent support. | Dated official plan and fee schedules plus at least one independent source discussing checkout, payments or selling. Separate platform fees from processor fees. | 20 |
| Site design and brand control | Assess storefront templates, custom domain, layout flexibility, branding controls and code-level customization. 0–20: little control over the school’s public presentation. 21–40: rigid templates or prominent limits. 41–60: usable storefront with constrained differentiation. 61–80: good brand control for typical creators, with some limits. 81–100: flexible, polished design controls across the public school and sales pages. | Current vendor feature documentation plus one independent review or owner report that directly discusses site customization or branding. | 10 |
| Marketing and audience growth | Assess email, affiliates, referrals, coupons, abandoned-cart recovery and sales reporting. 0–20: few built-in ways to reach or convert an audience. 21–40: minimal tools or significant reliance on add-ons. 41–60: useful basics but notable automation or reporting gaps. 61–80: strong creator marketing toolkit for common needs. 81–100: broad, well-integrated marketing and measurement with evidence of practical usefulness. | Current vendor documentation plus one independent product review or owner source directly addressing marketing tools. | 10 |
| Integrations and data portability | Assess third-party app connections, API/webhooks, student and transaction exports, content portability and migration risk. 0–20: little integration and poor access to essential records. 21–40: narrow connections or serious export constraints. 41–60: useful connections and basic data exports, but meaningful lock-in. 61–80: practical integration and migration paths with manageable limits. 81–100: open, broad interoperability and straightforward export of courses and business data. | Current official integration and export documentation plus one independent source about integrations or migration. Distinguish CSV export from portable course packages. | 10 |
| Pricing, limits and support | Assess subscription value, transaction and processing fees, usage caps, overages, plan gates and support access. 0–20: opaque or prohibitive costs and little usable support. 21–40: significant surprise costs or weak access to help. 41–60: fair core value but material fees, limits or support trade-offs. 61–80: costs and plan limits are reasonably clear for typical users with accessible support. 81–100: unusually strong value, transparent scaling costs and consistently effective support, corroborated independently. | Dated official pricing and usage policies plus two independent owner or expert sources discussing value or support. State the date and avoid claiming support quality from vendor promises alone. | 15 |
Methodology v1.0.
Rubric anchors
| 90–100 | Among the best currently available |
|---|---|
| 75–89 | Clearly above typical for the category |
| 60–74 | Typical for the category |
| 40–59 | Noticeable weakness |
| 0–39 | Serious problem (caps the BuyScore at 79) |
When evidence falls below the weakest acceptable basis for a criterion, it is marked "Evidence limited" instead of scored.
Changelog
- v1.018 Oct 2026 · First published category rubric and criteria for creator-focused online course platforms, covering course delivery, learners, commerce, design, marketing, integrations and operating value.