Workday Learning: “I could never be more than happy with the ease of use”
Read Review
|
SAP SuccessFactors HCM: “Everything. The product makes very little sense, poorly designed, and horrid user interface, reminiscent of websites from the 2005 -- I think they borrowed heavily from Hotmail's design. We had to use this at work for our performance review, an already dreadful ordeal, and this system made it magnitudes worse. The un-intuitive design makes it difficult for both the manager and employee to complete, which makes it even less likely for either party to complete it in time -- everyone just tries to put this off as long as possible, especially when it's so difficult to figure out.”
Read Review
|
Virti: “Incredibly easy to use, intuitive design, code free, create an end to end training conversation in minutes, grounded in learning science. Use it on any device. I can even practice on my phone. It’s ultra accessible.”
Read Review
|
Intellum Platform: “Our experience with Intellum has been deeply disappointing.
The platform feels outdated, incomplete, and far behind where the market is moving, especially in AI, localization, authoring, reporting, and overall user experience. Many important capabilities we needed were either missing, poorly designed, locked behind extra cost, or repeatedly pushed into “feature request” status without meaningful delivery. Across our requirements, a large number of critical asks around reporting, learner dashboards, multilingual workflows, SCORM searchability, AI functionality on SCORM content, modern authoring, versioning, UX improvements, and translation support were still unresolved or not properly supported.
Customer Success and Support were also a major problem. The experience felt highly reactive, not proactive. Instead of ownership and follow-through, we often got vague answers, more tickets to open, more discovery questions, or references to future possibilities without concrete timelines. In several cases, teams were slow to respond, failed to close the loop, or shifted responsibility back to us rather than solving the issue. Even serious operational pain points stayed in discussion mode for far too long.
Their AI capabilities were especially underwhelming. The AI features sounded promising in theory, but in practice they were not useful enough for our workflow. A major issue was that AI agents could not properly crawl or understand SCORM-based e-learning content, which made several of those features ineffective for us. Important multilingual and AI-assisted content capabilities were also still missing or “not planned,” despite being basic expectations in today’s market.
The authoring and editing experience is also weak. The editor feels primitive, formatting is limited, creating visually strong content is harder than it should be, and several modern content creation expectations still require workarounds or additional products. On top of that, some solutions were only available through paid add-ons or separate tools, which made the overall ecosystem feel fragmented and expensive rather than streamlined.
Reporting and analytics were another major frustration. Important learner and manager visibility needs were either unavailable, difficult to configure, or dependent on external BI tooling instead of being solved natively in the platform. For a learning platform, this created a very poor experience both operationally and strategically.
Overall, Intellum felt like a product with too many gaps, too much dependence on external tools, too little urgency from the teams behind it, and not enough real delivery against critical needs. We expected a strategic partner and a modern LMS. What we got was an outdated, incomplete system with weak AI, frustrating support, and too many unresolved limitations.”
Read Review
|
Cornerstone Learning: “The various delivery modalities that it offers for learners; All of the offerings that Cornerstone has!”
Read Review
|
Bridge: “Zero UX customization abilities, you have no choice of branding beyond adding a basic banner image and basic color changes (salesperson promised we'd be able to brand for our individual user groups -- we can't). Limited reporting functionality; reporting functions don't work with all types of Articulate interactions. There are bugs in reporting that tech support has known about for months and never resolved. We can't capture interaction data unless it's part of a quiz object (different than what the salesperson promised).
Works very poorly with SCORM objects. When opening a SCORM course in a new window, even with blazing fast connection speeds and a small file size, we've had situations where it took a full 90 seconds for the link to the course to appear. Then when the user closes the course, we've had situations where it took over a full minute to redirect back to the LMS. Tech support has known about this since September 2019 - no movement to address it.
Bridge's course editor is ridiculously limited. You can't change fonts, no text alignment changes, no image resizing, no tables, no HTML editor. You have no choice, because "reasons."
Can't customize certificates. You have no choice but to use their design. Can't even drop a logo on there...
Surveys are absolutely unusable. You can't attach them to courses, so you can only send them out at specific times, but you can't use them, for example to evaluate a program. Also, they ONLY allow Likert questions. You can't even put an introductory statement or instructions in there.
Continuing education credits does nothing. You can only set it to a max of 100, which is useless if you're using a point system that gets into the triple digits.
Permissions are not customizable enough and grouped together in ways that's been a nightmare to deal with (for example, if you need someone to be able to run simple reports, then you also have no choice but to give them permission to create user groups; if you need someone to be able to assign courses for their team, then you have no choice but to give them the ability to assign courses that don't apply to their team). Because of these issues, we had no choice but to remove ALL managers' ability to assign courses, causing us far more work than we had with our prior LMS. Sometimes, when users enroll into a program, the first course appears locked and the user can't access it. Tech support knows about this. Also, if you want a banner image for your program, you have no choice but to have a colorful gradient applied to your banner image AND a geometric pattern overlaid on top of THAT gradient, so two overlays on top of your graphic. Default feedback for incorrect answers in a quiz or a failed login is "Oh Snap!" and there's no way to change it - you have no choice but to present your company in a sophomoric light. I could go on and on.
Overall, this is a poor LMS and I wouldn't recommend to anyone except for perhaps those looking for a starter system who plan to upgrade within a year.”
Read Review
|
