How we list

What qualifies for a listing

A listing has to be a tool: something you install, run, embed, buy or self-host that reads, writes, produces, validates, plays, packages, hosts or tracks content in SCORM, xAPI, cmi5, AICC or LTI. A JavaScript runtime qualifies. A command-line packager qualifies. A learning management system qualifies because its standards support is the thing people need to compare. A course library does not.

Beyond that the bar is deliberately low, and the same for everyone:

• It is publicly available — a repository, a download, a plan you can buy, or a trial you can start without a sales call.
• It is publicly documented, so its standards support can be established from something other than a brochure sentence.
• It has a named publisher or maintainer and a working URL.
• Size is not a criterion. A two-star repository with one maintainer is listed, with a two-star repository's maintenance signals shown plainly next to it.

What is turned away: course marketplaces and content libraries, general quality-assurance outsourcing, consultancies and agencies (they belong on the services waitlist, not in the tool catalogue), forks that add nothing to the canonical project, and anything whose claim to handle these standards we cannot corroborate anywhere.

Nobody has to ask to be listed, and most entries here were added because we found the tool rather than because anyone submitted it. Submission is free, it is reviewed in roughly two weeks, and no amount of money makes a tool qualify that would not have qualified anyway.

Full pages and stubs

A listing is one of two things. A full page has its own URL, is indexable, and is written. A stub is a row in its category's table: it appears in the tables and in search, it carries whatever fact block we can evidence, and it is marked noindex so it never competes for a search result it cannot earn.

The bar for a full page — the content bar — is three things at once:

• A complete fact block: standards support with provenance on each claim, licence, pricing model, platforms, hosting model and maintenance status.
• At least 150 words of original prose — what the tool is, who it suits, where it is weak, and how well maintained it is. Not a rewritten product page.
• At least one hard signal: a repository metric, a dated release, or a registry entry.

A stub is not a demotion and it is not a sales tactic. Commercial products usually start as stubs because their standards claims arrive vendor-stated and have to be checked one at a time; they are promoted as that checking happens. Listings move in both directions. A full page whose facts have gone unverifiable — a dead product page, a repository with no trace of the maintainer — drops back to a stub rather than sitting there looking authoritative.

How the order is decided

Organic order — the default order of a category page, a collection, or the full catalogue — is decided by four criteria applied in this sequence:

1. 1Standards coverage. How many of the standards relevant to that category the tool supports, and how well evidenced each claim is. A registry-verified fact outranks an editor-checked one, which outranks a vendor-stated one.
2. 2Maintenance. For open source: last commit, release cadence and the archived flag, refreshed weekly from the repository host. For commercial products: the date we last confirmed the thing is still sold and still supported.
3. 3Popularity. Stars, downloads, or — where neither exists — whether the product is deployed widely enough to leave independent evidence behind it.
4. 4Alphabetical. The tie-break, so that two tools with the same evidence and the same signals land in the same order every time the site is rebuilt.

Payment does not appear anywhere in that list, and there is no position on this site that money moves. Sorting and filtering controls change the order you see; they do not change ours, and they cannot be bought either.

Claimed, Checked, Verified

Three words appear as chips on listings. They are the only three, they always mean the same thing, and none of them is a quality judgement.

Claimedownership proven

Someone has proved they control the tool — an email at its own domain, or an account with commit rights on its repository. That is all it certifies. A claimed listing is not more accurate, more endorsed or better ranked than an unclaimed one; it simply has a named contact who can correct it quickly.

Checked <date>reviewed by the editor, on a date

The editor went through the facts on that date against the documentation, the source or the running product. The date is always shown, because a check is only worth the day it happened on. Past twelve months the listing says so itself rather than quietly ageing.

Verifiedbacked by an official registry

An official registry lists the product, and the entry is linked from the listing so you can read it yourself. Verified means a registry says so — it does not mean we tested anything. ADL retired its xAPI Adopter Registry in November 2025, which leaves the 1EdTech certified product directory as the only live registry we accept. No fact on this site currently carries Verified.

Provenance on every fact

Most directories print "supports SCORM 2004" as though it were a measurement. Every standards claim here says where it came from instead, at one of three levels:

• Vendor-stated. The publisher says so, on a page we link to. It is a claim, reported accurately as a claim, and it is not a finding.
• Editor-checked. We confirmed it ourselves on a stated date, in the documentation, the source code, or the product as it runs. Where the method is not obvious, the listing notes what was checked.
• Registry-verified. An official registry entry backs the claim, and the entry is linked.

A cell with no provenance is a cell we have not established. It shows as unknown, never as "no" — the absence of evidence that a tool supports cmi5 is not evidence that it does not, and printing one as the other is how directories end up misrepresenting products they have never opened.

We link registries. We do not certify conformance.

This directory runs no conformance test and issues no conformance badge. Certification against these specifications belongs to the bodies that own them — ADL for SCORM and xAPI, 1EdTech for LTI — and a badge minted by a directory would be worth precisely nothing to the people who need one.

What we do instead is link the registries. That is a shorter list than it used to be: ADL retired its hosted xAPI Adopter Registry on 18 November 2025 and adlnet.gov has been unreachable since around May 2026, with the surviving artefacts moved to github.com/adlnet. The 1EdTech certified product directory is the only live registry left. Where a product appears in one, the listing carries Verified and the entry is linked. Where it does not — which today means every listing — the listing says what was checked instead, and by whom.

The registries themselves are collected on the resources page , so you can go straight to the source without a listing in the middle.

Paid placement

There is none today. Nothing on this site has been paid for by anyone, and no listing, position, chip or sentence has been bought. Directories usually add sponsorship once they have traffic worth buying, and this one intends to. The rules are published now so that the change is visible when it happens:

• Paid placement lives in its own boxed slot, separate from results, labelled with one word: Sponsored. Never woven into a ranked list.
• Links inside a paid slot carry rel="sponsored". Affiliate links, if there ever are any, are disclosed on the page they appear on and carry the same attribute.
• A sponsored slot that does not match your active filters collapses. It does not sit there pretending to be a result.
• Prices are published on a public page, not quoted privately, so anyone can see what a slot costs and what it does not buy.
• Sponsorship never moves organic position, never changes a chip, never edits a standards matrix, and never softens editorial text. A sponsor who disputes a fact gets the same correction process as everyone else, and no more.

Who publishes this

LOST END FOUND LTD publishes scorm-tools.com. It also sells SCORM tools: ppt-to-scorm.com, scorm-lab.com and scormbridge.app. All three are listed here, next to their competitors, because a SCORM directory that omitted three SCORM products would be distorted in a quieter and less honest way.

They are held to every rule above, and to three more:

• They sit in a separate "Our products" block and carry a publisher badge, so you always know who wrote the page you are reading.
• They are never editor's picks.
• They can never occupy a paid slot, which would amount to the publisher paying itself for the appearance of independence.

Their direct competitors are listed with the same fields, the same provenance rules and the same right of correction. Where a page makes a comparative factual claim about a competing product, that claim carries provenance and a source link. If a listing here reads as though it were written by someone selling against the tool it describes, that is a defect — say so and it gets fixed. The fuller statement is on the about page .

If we have it wrong

Anyone can ask for a correction, and you do not have to own the tool to do it. Every listing carries a report link; corrections, removals, logo questions and the "no longer listed" status are all set out in the listing policy . Direct route: hello@scorm-tools.com.