The yardstick for AI in education and EdTech - calibrated for your sub-segment and your stack.

How we test, score, and publish

Yardstick Research is an independent software research and consulting agency for B2B AI tools. We test the tools ourselves, score them on outcomes that matter, and publish the results. Methodology in plain sight, so any school board, cabinet, or board of trustees can check our work. For K-12 districts, charter networks, private schools, universities, community colleges, online universities, and for-profit / vocational institutions, we weight Strategy & Use Cases and Team & Workflow heavily because in education the deployment site (classroom, advising desk, enrollment funnel, back office) and the owner of that workflow determine whether AI lands, and student-data-privacy rules are the precondition for production AI. Here's how that actually happens:

1. 01

   We evaluate every education vendor on this list using public information and free-tier hands-on.

   Our researchers evaluate each vendor on the list using a defensible mix of inputs: vendor documentation and pricing pages, free-tier or trial-seat hands-on where the vendor offers one, video walkthroughs, third-party reviews (G2, Capterra, EdSurge Product Index), published district and institution case studies, practitioner discussion (LinkedIn, ASU+GSV, EDUCAUSE coverage), and recent funding and news coverage. Where we can sign up and exercise the product directly, we do, and grade the output against a sample workflow: in the education case, an adaptive-learning student session through a tool like Khanmigo or MagicSchool AI, an enrollment-chatbot interaction through Slate or EAB Navigate, or a teacher lesson-planning pass. We do not pay for paid tiers and we do not run a district-wide pilot through every tool. Both are cost-prohibitive at the scale this guide covers.

   Every claim in a tear-sheet is labelled MEASURED (free-tier hands-on observation, or output graded against a sample workflow), ESTIMATED (cost-per-seat efficiency derived from the vendor's pricing page and feature limits), or CITED (vendor-published or third-party benchmark, with the source linked).

2. 02

   We score on outcomes buyers care about, with weights we publish.

   Vendor decks sell features. Education operators actually buy outcomes: graduation and completion rates that move, teacher workload that drops without crossing the student-data-privacy line, and a stack that survives FERPA, COPPA, SDPC, SOPIPA / SOPPA / NY Ed Law 2-d, Title IX, and SOC 2 review. We score five dimensions: Strategy & Use Cases, Data Readiness, Tool Stack, Team & Workflow, and Budget & Procurement. Industry benchmarks for mature education operators sit at 55 / 50 / 45 / 50 / 50 percent of each dimension's maximum. The dimensions and benchmarks are public so your board can defend the pick, and so vendors can't quietly negotiate them. The audit also captures your operating baselines (graduation / completion rate, first-to-second-year retention, reading and math proficiency, application-to-yield rate, placement rate, and cohort default rate) and fans return-on-investment scenarios out per selected baseline.

3. 03

   We publish. Vendors check facts. Affiliate links are disclosed.

   Every vendor receives their scored tear-sheet seven days before publication and can flag factual errors (wrong pricing tier, misquoted feature, integration listed as native that's actually via a third party). Rankings can't be appealed; only factual corrections are accepted. Where the guide links to a vendor's product, that link may earn us a commission. Disclosed on every page where the link appears. Vendors do not pay for inclusion, placement, or ranking.