Exam season is the fortnight when school software either holds or falls apart. Timetables clash, a teacher enters marks for the wrong class, a total does not match the maximum, and someone rebuilds report cards by hand over a weekend.
Vendor websites are little help in predicting that, because every one of them lists exam management, grading and report cards. This article compares 14 examination, grading and report card capabilities across six school platforms, so you can shortlist and write better 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. Five gaps are named in their own section below, including one capability two competitors publicly state and ScolaOS does not have.
Nothing here is ranked. No scores, no winner.
Methodology
Last verified: 20 July 2026
- What was compared: 14 capabilities, from exam scheduling and seating through marks entry, grading, report cards, publishing, transcripts and analytics.
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exam scheduling and timetable | Yes, bulk and exam groups | Stated | Stated | Stated, online exams | Stated | Not publicly stated |
| Clash and conflict detection | Yes, exam times only | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Seating plan generation | Yes, from live enrolment | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Teacher-scoped marks entry | Yes, assigned subjects only | Entry stated, scoping not stated | Entry and filter stated, scoping not stated | Not publicly stated | Role-based stated, scoping not stated | Teacher and admin split stated, per subject not stated |
| Marks validated against maximum | Yes, enforced on save | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated |
| Grading scales and grade bands | Yes, with grace marks | Stated | Stated | Stated | Stated | Stated, five scale types |
| Weighted assessment components | Not available | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Stated | Stated |
| Moderation with a recorded reason | Not available | Not publicly stated | Approval-based locking stated, recorded reason not stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Assessment locking stated, recorded reason not stated |
| Report card, printable or PDF | Yes, QR-verifiable | Stated, PDF | Stated, format not specified | Not publicly stated | Stated, format not specified | Not publicly stated |
| Bulk, class-wide generation | Yes, by class, section, exam type | Stated | Stated | Stated, batch mark sheet | Stated | Not publicly stated |
| Customisable templates | Yes, with signatories | Stated | Stated | Not publicly stated | Stated | Stated |
| Controlled publishing to portal | Yes, publish, schedule, unpublish | Stated | Stated | Not publicly stated | Stated | Stated |
| Transcripts and cross-year record | Yes, plus archived results | Annual report stated, cross-year not stated | Archiving stated, transcript not stated | Not publicly stated | Not publicly stated | Stated |
| Exam and result analytics | Basic counts only | Stated | Stated | Stated | Stated | Stated |
‡ Campus 365's support documentation could not be reached on the verification date (SSL failure). Its "not publicly stated" cells are the least reliable in this table, and several may reflect documentation this exercise could not open rather than absent capability. Ask Campus 365 directly rather than reading anything into that column.
"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 four rows nobody advertises
Four rows are "not publicly stated" for all five competitors: clash detection, seating plan generation, marks validated against the maximum, and the recorded-reason element of moderation. On that last row Entab and Classe365 both state locking controls over mark changes; what none of the five states is a recorded reason attached to the change.
That is easy to misread. It is a fact about what this category publishes, not a finding about what these products contain. A capability no vendor advertises may well exist inside several of them. Clash checking and a maximum-marks guard in particular are quiet correctness work that engineers build early and marketing never mentions, because "we stop you saving 105 out of 100" does not sell a demo.
On these four rows the public record is silent, and silence is not evidence. Ask each vendor directly, and ask them to show it rather than confirm it. A verbal yes costs nothing to give, from any vendor here including this one, so make ScolaOS demonstrate it too.
The caution runs the other way too. ScolaOS shows "yes" on three of those four rows only because its own code was open to inspection, an advantage no competitor here was given.
Notes on each platform
Fedena
Fedena states an Exam Planner running from academic year down to terms and individual exams, grading levels configured with a minimum score and credit points, report cards produced individually or as one consolidated PDF covering all students, and a signature selection option on the template.
On analytics it states batch, course and subject level reporting, including a student's score against the class average. Its annual Planner Report covers a year; a cross-year transcript is not publicly stated.
Entab CampusCare
Entab states the most control-oriented exam workflow in this set: exam locking and approval-based locking for mark changes, report card locking, hall ticket and admit card generation, attendance carried into report cards, and automated blocking of a report card when fees are pending.
Two clarifications matter for a buyer. Hall ticket generation is not seating plan generation, and the two are easy to conflate in a demo. And Entab states an Excel marks import "with validation" without specifying the type, so whether that includes a maximum-marks check is worth asking. Entab also states AI auto-grading under its LMS.
Campus 365
Of the material this exercise could read, Campus 365 publishes the least exam detail of the five, though see the fairness note below before drawing anything from that: online objective and subjective exams, CWA, CCE and GPA grading schemes by name, graphical performance analytics, and grouping several exams into a single batch mark sheet.
A fairness note. Campus 365's support documentation could not be reached on the verification date because of an SSL failure, so its "not publicly stated" cells here are the least reliable in the set and several may simply reflect docs this exercise could not open. Treat that column as most in need of a direct conversation.
Vidyalaya
Vidyalaya states grade configuration with combinations and weightage, automatic grade calculation, and support for percentage, GPA and CGPA alongside CBSE, ICSE, IB and state board formats. Results can be produced individually or in bulk, mark sheets are described as customisable, and it states online MCQ and descriptive exams.
It is one of only two platforms here publicly stating weighted assessment configuration, which matters if an internal test and a term exam carry different weights in your model.
Classe365
Classe365 publishes the most explicit grading configuration of the six: five grading scale types, category weightages applied commonly or per subject and class, and administrator locking of assessments. Its publishing model is stated plainly: only published scores reach a report card.
It is the only vendor here stating an institute logo option in its report card editor, and the only one stating transcripts by name, although their contents are not publicly stated. It also states AI summary comments on assessments. Exam timetabling is not publicly stated.
What ScolaOS does well, 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.
Where it is strong
Clash-checked bulk scheduling. Exams schedule in bulk and in groups, and an overlap check runs on every bulk path. Its scope is limited, as stated in the gaps below.
Seating plans built from live enrolment. Plans generate from current class and section enrolment, not a spreadsheet exported last month, then validate, assign, finalise and export for invigilators.
Marks entry scoped to the teacher. A teacher can enter marks only for subjects they are assigned to, enforced at the permission layer.
A maximum-marks guard. Negative values and anything above the paper's maximum are rejected on save.
Grade bands with grace marks and promotion rules. Configurable bands, grade resolution, grace marks and three promotion logics, plus a background job that recalculates published results when a rule changes.
Batch report cards with QR-verifiable documents. Report cards render as real PDFs and generate in bulk by class, section or exam type, with progress tracking, templates, signatories, numbering and revisions. Every issued document carries a QR code anyone can verify publicly without logging in.
Controlled publishing. Results publish, schedule, unpublish or bulk-publish by class, section, subject or exam type, with visibility enforced in the student and parent portals.
Transcripts and retained history. Transcripts generate under their own permission with template and signatory support, and results are retained across years.
An exam lifecycle audit trail. Publishing, scheduling, bulk publishing and marks-entry locking write audit rows with old and new values, surfaced on a dedicated audit log screen.
Where it falls short
These are the gaps, stated as plainly as the competitor rows above.
- No weighted assessment components. Weightage fields are stored and displayed, but no calculation uses them. The aggregation is an unweighted sum of marks over maximum marks. Vidyalaya and Classe365 both publicly state weighted configuration; ScolaOS does not have it. If your model depends on weights, test this directly.
- No moderation with a recorded reason. Correcting a mark is a plain overwrite. The system keeps who last entered a mark, but not the previous value and not a reason. No competitor here states a recorded reason either, but that does not fill the gap for a school that needs one.
- Analytics are basic counts. Four dashboard figures for total, upcoming, completed and published exams, a breakdown by status, a distribution by exam type, and a six-month trend of exam counts. No section-level analysis, no per-student performance over time, no cross-campus comparison. All five competitors state analytics of some kind, several clearly richer.
- Clash detection covers exam times only. It catches overlapping exam times. It does not check whether two exams share a room, and it does not check invigilator availability. Both remain a human responsibility.
- No exam attendance record. Absentees are marked during marks entry, which works but is not an attendance register you can audit separately. Entab, by contrast, states attendance integrated into its report cards.
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 clash actually caught. Not described, caught. Have the vendor schedule two exams for the same group at the same hour, in front of you. Then ask the harder version: same room, same invigilator.
Ask whether a teacher can enter marks for a class they do not teach. Log in as a teacher during the demo and try. A hidden menu is not access control, and the difference surfaces only when the wrong person edits a marks sheet.
Ask what happens when a mark is corrected. Who can change it, is the previous value kept, is a reason recorded, and can an examinations officer see the history. Very few vendors publish an answer.
Ask to generate report cards for a whole class, not one student. Single-student generation looks identical everywhere. Ask for 60 at once, with your grading scheme, and watch what happens when one student has a missing mark.
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.
Why do four rows show "not publicly stated" for every competitor?
Because clash detection, seating plans, maximum-marks validation and recorded moderation reasons are things this category rarely advertises. That is a fact about publishing habits, not about product capability. Any of those five platforms may have some or all of them.
Which platforms state weighted assessment components?
Vidyalaya and Classe365, with Classe365 the more explicit of the two. ScolaOS does not have weighted components. For the other three, it is not publicly stated.
Is Campus 365 treated fairly here?
Its support documentation could not be reached on the verification date because of an SSL failure, so its "not publicly stated" cells are the least reliable in this table. If it is on your shortlist, ask directly rather than reading anything into that column.
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 five limitations rather than none.
Does ScolaOS use AI in its examination module?
No. No AI touches examination or student data in ScolaOS. Two vendors here state AI in adjacent areas: Entab states AI auto-grading under its LMS, and Classe365 states AI summary comments on assessments.
Conclusion
Exam software is chosen from a feature list and judged in the fortnight when results are due. Whether a clash is caught before the timetable goes out, whether the wrong teacher can edit a marks sheet, whether a corrected grade leaves a trace, whether 60 report cards generate in one action: those details decide whether your examinations officer has a normal week or a very bad one.
Use the table to shortlist, then use the demo questions to test what a table cannot, especially the four rows where the public record is silent. Several platforms here will suit schools 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 hardest exam scenario, or read the platform, pricing and security pages first. More answers sit on the FAQ page and in the blog.