Running one campus is a school. Running several under one trust, group or franchise is a different problem, and most software is bought before anyone tests it at that scale. A settings change that took a minute on one campus now has to reach five without breaking a sixth. A new campus has to be stood up in a week, not a term. A director wants one number for the whole group, while a branch head wants to see only their own.
Every vendor website lists multi-branch support, so the word tells you almost nothing. This article compares 11 multi-branch and group administration capabilities across six school platforms, so you can shortlist and write sharper demo questions.
Who publishes this, and why that matters
ScolaOS publishes this article and is one of the six platforms compared. Read it with that in mind.
Because of that conflict of interest, the ScolaOS entry is held to a stricter standard: checked against the product's source code rather than its marketing pages, and listing what the product does not do alongside what it does. Its gaps are named in their own section below, including a capability or two that competitors state and ScolaOS handles differently or not at all.
Nothing here is ranked. No scores, no winner.
Methodology
Last verified: 20 July 2026
- What was compared: 11 capabilities, from multi-branch support and consolidated dashboards through branch-scoped roles, group-wide configuration, campus onboarding, audit trails, data isolation and centralised billing.
- How competitor facts were gathered: from each vendor's own public website and vendor-owned support documentation. Nothing from review sites, directories or third-party marketing.
- How the ScolaOS entry was gathered: from the ScolaOS codebase, not the ScolaOS website. Where code and marketing would differ, the code won.
- No ratings, no ranking: no platform is scored, and none is called better than another.
What "not publicly stated" means, and what it does not
Many cells in the table below read "Not publicly stated."
That means one thing: on 20 July 2026, that vendor's own website and support documentation did not advertise that capability. It is not a finding that the product lacks it. Vendors document unevenly, and a capability can be fully built and used every term while never appearing on a public page.
Treat every "not publicly stated" cell as a demo question, never as a mark against the product. Some will turn out to be yes. Vendor features and packaging also change frequently, so confirm current details before deciding.
The comparison table
| Capability | ScolaOS | Fedena | Entab CampusCare | Campus 365 ‡ | Vidyalaya | Classe365 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-branch or multi-campus | Yes, one branch-aware platform | Stated | Stated | Stated, Enterprise add-on | Stated | Stated |
| Group or consolidated dashboard | Yes, all-branches aggregate | Stated | Stated | Stated, master dashboard | Stated | Stated |
| Side-by-side comparison of campuses | Not available, aggregate only | Not publicly stated, aggregate | Not publicly stated, aggregate | Stated, unconfirmed ‡ | Not publicly stated, aggregate | Not publicly stated, per-campus |
| Branch-scoped roles and access | Yes, lock to branch or work group-wide | Partial | Stated, branch-level permissions | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Partial, per-campus admins |
| RBAC and custom roles | Yes, built to your org chart | Stated | Partial | Stated | Stated | Not publicly stated |
| Standardising config across branches | Yes, preview, step-up, restore points | Stated, SMS and email settings | Stated, consistency and local fee rules | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Onboarding a new campus | Yes, copy config groups with preview | Stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated, partner-level | Not publicly stated | Stated, add tenant |
| Audit logs and activity trails | Yes, per-module | Stated, Audit module | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Multi-school, franchise, trust or separate | Yes, isolated per school | Stated | Stated | Stated, OEM instances | Partial | Stated, separate accounts |
| Data isolation between branches | Yes, scoped per school and branch | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Partial | Partial, separate accounts |
| Centralised billing across branches | Not available as a group rollup | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Stated, main-account billing |
‡ Campus 365's multi-branch support documentation could not be reached on the verification date (SSL failure). Its cells are the least reliable in this table, and its one "stated" claim on side-by-side comparison comes from a search summary of a document this exercise could not open. Ask Campus 365 directly rather than reading anything into that column, and verify the comparison claim before relying on it.
"Stated" means the vendor advertised that capability on its own site or support docs on the verification date. The ScolaOS column reads differently on purpose: it was checked against source code, so it can say "yes" or "not available" definitively. The competitor columns record only what each vendor publishes, which is why they never say "no".
The rows to read carefully
Three rows deserve a closer look before you draw conclusions.
Side-by-side comparison of campuses. Only Campus 365 has anything approaching a "stated" here, and that claim is unconfirmed for the reason in the footnote above. The other four platforms, and ScolaOS, aggregate: they roll several campuses into one group total rather than putting campuses beside each other in a single view. This is the norm in the category, not the exception. If ranking campus against campus in one screen matters to you, treat it as unproven across the whole set and ask every vendor to show it live.
Standardising configuration across branches. ScolaOS and two competitors say something here, but at different depths. Fedena states standardising SMS and email settings group-wide, Entab states consistency of process with local fee rules, and ScolaOS states a preview-and-apply flow with restore points. The row is worth probing because "standardise settings" can mean anything from a shared template to a controlled, reversible change.
Data isolation and audit. Several competitor cells here are "not publicly stated," which is a documentation gap, not a security judgement. Data isolation in particular is core plumbing that vendors often leave off a marketing page. Ask for it in writing during procurement rather than inferring anything from the table.
Notes on each platform
Fedena
Fedena carries "Multi-School" as a headline in its navigation and states a single dashboard covering all institutions, with an OEM partner able to create new instances. It states standardising SMS and email settings across the group, and an Audit module offered at its Ultimate tier. Its group view aggregates rather than comparing campuses side by side.
One note for a buyer. Fedena's dedicated multi-school landing page returned a 404 on the verification date, so the claims here were corroborated through its homepage navigation and feature tour rather than a single canonical page.
Entab CampusCare
Entab states a dedicated multi-school page, the same functionality across all schools with consistency in processes, and centralised dashboards that carry branch-level permissions alongside local fee rules. It cites a large group as a customer reference.
Two clarifications matter. Entab's branch-level permissions are one of the clearer branch-scoping statements in this set, worth seeing configured live. Its designation-based roles and any campus comparison feature appeared only in search snippets, not on a page this exercise could confirm, so both are recorded as not publicly stated rather than attributed. Ask Entab to show them.
Campus 365
Campus 365 states an Enterprise "Master Dashboard to manage multiple branches," offered as an add-on available on request, and OEM instances for separate schools. On its pricing page the multi-branch capability is positioned as an Enterprise-tier feature.
A fairness note. Campus 365's Master Dashboard support documentation could not be reached on the verification date because of an SSL failure, so its cells are the least reliable in the set. Its side-by-side comparison claim comes from a search summary of that unreachable document, so treat it as unconfirmed and ask Campus 365 to demonstrate it. Several of its "not publicly stated" cells may simply reflect docs this exercise could not open.
Vidyalaya
Vidyalaya states that each campus operates independently with a centralised dashboard for consolidated reports, and it states role-based access control. Multi-branch appears as a passing mention in an FAQ line rather than on a dedicated page, so much of its multi-branch detail is recorded as not publicly stated or partial. That thin public footprint is a reason to ask more, not less: request a written description of how campuses are separated and how a group-level user sees across them.
Classe365
Classe365 states a "Multicampus" module in its own documentation. A super-admin connects several Classe365 accounts to a main account, with per-campus tracking and central analytics rather than a side-by-side comparison. It states onboarding a new campus through an "Add Tenant" flow using a subdomain and API key, and centralised billing on the main account, which is the only stated centralised-billing cell in this table. Because each campus is a separate account joined at the top, per-campus admins and separate-account isolation follow from that model. Ask how much a group-level user can see and change across those linked accounts in one place.
Where ScolaOS leads, and where it does not
ScolaOS is Education Infrastructure as a Service, built by Terra System Labs Pvt Ltd, which is ISO 9001:2015 compliant, ISO 27001:2022 compliant and a Startup certified company. It runs several campuses as branches on one branch-aware platform rather than as separate installations, with each school's data kept fully separate from every other organisation's, and families and staff only ever seeing their own scope.
Two capabilities are where its multi-branch design goes deeper than the five competitors advertise. Both are stated here as facts about the product, not as claims of superiority.
Where it leads
Applying a configuration change across branches, with a way back (configOps). A group administrator can preview a settings change, then apply it to several branches at once. The change requires step-up authentication before it runs, and it creates restore points so it can be rolled back. This is the difference between "we can standardise settings" and "we can standardise settings, show you exactly what will change first, require a second authentication, and undo it if it was wrong." None of the five competitors advertises this combination of preview, step-up and restore points.
Onboarding a new campus by copying configuration (branchCopy). A new campus is created by copying selected configuration groups from an existing branch: academic setup, academic policies, fee configuration, finance policies, access and permissions, document configuration, notification configuration and operations configuration. Before anything is written, a dry run previews exactly what will be copied. The copy is confirmed with step-up authentication, and each group's progress is visible as it completes. This turns campus onboarding from a from-scratch rebuild into a review-and-confirm exercise.
Where it does not
These are the honest limits, stated as plainly as the competitor rows above.
- No side-by-side campus comparison. The all-branches view returns one merged group total, not campuses arranged beside each other. ScolaOS shows a live group total or switches into a single campus; it does not rank campus against campus in one screen. This is a shared limitation, not a ScolaOS-specific loss: four of the five competitors here also only aggregate, and the one "stated" claim is unconfirmed. If you need this, test it against every vendor, not just this one.
- No built-in "principal" or "trustee" roles. ScolaOS ships with administrator tiers and a custom role builder, so you build roles to match your org chart, including a principal or trustee if you want one. What it does not do is hand you those named roles out of the box on day one. If day-one named designations matter to you, plan the role build into onboarding.
- Audit is per-module, not one group log. Sensitive changes, including configuration changes, are recorded with the user and time, consistently across branches. What ScolaOS does not offer is a single group-wide audit-log viewer that shows every action across every module and campus on one screen. Audit lives with each module.
- No group billing rollup. ScolaOS does not present a single cross-branch billing statement for a group. Classe365 is the only platform here that states centralised billing on a main account. If consolidated group invoicing is a hard requirement, raise it early.
There is no AI touching school data in ScolaOS, and no group-analytics AI. That is deliberate.
How to evaluate this yourself
The table gets you to a shortlist. These questions get you to a decision, and they work on any vendor including this one.
Ask to see a config change previewed, applied to three branches, and rolled back. Not described, done. Have the vendor change one setting, show you what will change across three campuses before it commits, apply it, then undo it. Watch whether there is a preview, whether a second authentication is required, and whether a restore point actually exists.
Ask how a new campus is created. Copy-with-preview from an existing branch, or rebuilt from scratch? Have the vendor start onboarding a new campus in front of you and count the steps. The answer decides whether opening campus number six takes a week or a month.
Ask whether the group view compares campuses or only totals them. Request one screen that shows attendance, fees or results per campus side by side. This is the row where the whole category is weakest, so hold every vendor to the same test rather than assuming one has solved it.
Ask whether a branch head can see another branch's data. Log in as a branch-scoped user during the demo and try to reach a second campus. A hidden menu is not isolation, and the difference surfaces only when the wrong person opens the wrong records.
Frequently asked questions
Does "not publicly stated" mean the product cannot do it?
No. It means the vendor's own website and support documentation did not advertise it on 20 July 2026. Vendors document unevenly, and many working capabilities never reach a marketing page. Treat those cells as demo questions.
Can any of these platforms show two campuses side by side in one view?
Only Campus 365 states something close, and that claim is unconfirmed because the supporting document could not be reached on the verification date. The other four platforms, and ScolaOS, aggregate several campuses into one group total rather than comparing them side by side. Ask every vendor to demonstrate a genuine side-by-side view before relying on it.
What makes the ScolaOS approach to group configuration different?
ScolaOS applies a settings change across several branches with a preview of what will change, step-up authentication before it runs, and restore points to roll it back. Fedena and Entab state group-wide settings and consistency, but not that combination. Ask each vendor which of those three it actually provides.
Does ScolaOS have ready-made principal or trustee roles?
No. ScolaOS ships administrator tiers and a custom role builder, so you can create a principal or trustee role to match your structure, but those named roles are not out-of-the-box presets on day one. Plan the role setup into onboarding if named designations matter.
Is Campus 365 treated fairly here?
Its multi-branch support documentation could not be reached on the verification date because of an SSL failure, so its cells are the least reliable in this table and its side-by-side comparison claim is unconfirmed. If it is on your shortlist, ask directly rather than reading anything into that column.
Which platform states centralised billing across campuses?
Classe365, which states billing on a main account that links several campus accounts. For the other platforms, including ScolaOS, a single cross-branch billing rollup is not a documented capability. If group invoicing is a hard requirement, confirm it in writing.
Is ScolaOS the recommended option here?
This article recommends none of them and ranks none of them. ScolaOS publishes it and appears in it, which is why its own entry names its limitations rather than none.
Conclusion
Multi-branch software is chosen from a feature list and judged on the day a group actually behaves like a group: when one change has to reach every campus safely, when a new campus has to open on schedule, and when a director wants one honest number while a branch head wants only their own.
Use the table to shortlist, then use the demo questions to test what a table cannot, especially the rows where the whole category is thin. Several platforms here will suit school groups that ScolaOS would not, a reasonable outcome for an honest comparison.
Want to test the awkward cases against ScolaOS? Book a demo and bring your real group structure, or read the platform, solutions and security pages first. Pricing sits on the pricing page, and more answers are on the FAQ page and in the blog.