Disclosure: Remonthub makes Schylva. This guide leaves all vendor fields blank and includes questions that can reveal a Schylva limitation as readily as another vendor’s.
Seven-part evaluation framework
Make the vendor prove the school workflow.
A strong evaluation connects requirements to real school evidence. Use one representative class, fee structure, timetable, exam, circular and family account during demonstrations so vendors must show the operating path rather than describe it.
Begin with outcomes, not software categories.
Write down what should become easier, clearer or more reliable for the school. A useful outcome might be completing attendance without duplicate registers, giving parents one fee-payment path or publishing results without manual reconciliation. These outcomes become the test cases for every vendor.
Prepare three school outcomes and one representative example for each.Map every workflow across the people who touch it.
A feature can exist while the overall workflow remains broken. Attendance involves the teacher who records it, the administrator who reviews it and the parent or student who sees the relevant record. Ask to see the full role journey rather than a single administrator screen.
Include administrators, teachers, parents and students in the evaluation map.Separate available, launch-bound and planned capabilities.
A live screen, a roadmap slide and a verbal promise are different forms of evidence. Record which version the school will receive, whether iOS and Android apps are live or coming later and whether every required role can complete the promised workflow.
Mark every unverified capability as Needs confirmation until demonstrated.Evaluate implementation as part of the product decision.
Data migration, school configuration, account preparation, validation and training determine whether software becomes usable. Ask who owns each step, what the school must prepare and what evidence confirms that the setup is ready for activation.
Request a written implementation sequence with owners and acceptance checks.Compare the complete cost to the school.
The quoted software price may exclude implementation, data migration, training, payment-gateway charges, SMS, storage or future renewal changes. Compare the same scope and period across vendors, then separate provider charges from the software price.
Ask for included services, third-party charges and the renewal calculation in writing.Turn security adjectives into evidence.
Secure and enterprise-grade are not evaluation answers. Ask how school and role access is separated, how accounts are disabled, which audit information exists and what the agreement says about export, retention and deletion. Any certification or technical guarantee should have current supporting evidence.
Create an unresolved security list for every claim that cannot yet be substantiated.Define support and exit readiness before signing.
Response time, resolution time and support hours are different commitments. Confirm the escalation route, exclusions and ownership of the next action. Also understand how the school can obtain its agreed data if it later changes systems.
Record support hours, resolution definitions, escalation and export terms.Interactive three-vendor comparison
Build the shortlist around your school.
Priorities apply across all three vendors. A must-have receives three times the weight of a nice-to-have. Unverified answers remain at zero until the vendor demonstrates them.
01School fit and governanceStart with the way your school is organised rather than a generic module count.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| School, board, academic-year, class and section structureCan the vendor configure your real school structure without forcing a different operating model? | ||||
| One clearly defined school or campus scopeIs the initial scope written clearly, including anything that needs separate confirmation? | ||||
| Named school and vendor decision ownersDoes each important rollout decision have an accountable owner? |
02Daily school workflowsAsk vendors to demonstrate the work end to end, including the role that creates a record and the role that receives it.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teacher attendance and authorised school or family viewsCan the vendor demonstrate attendance from the class roster to each relevant view? | ||||
| Fee structure, status, offline records and online parent paymentAre the supported fee steps and separately payable gateway charges explicit? | ||||
| Class and teacher timetable workflowCan the school maintain schedules and give each role the current relevant view? | ||||
| Homework and protected study-material accessDoes the demonstrated workflow match whether your school needs publishing only or submission and grading too? | ||||
| Exam setup, marks, publishing and result viewsCan the vendor show your representative assessment process without implying unsupported board formats? | ||||
| Circulars, acknowledgements and notification channelsAre the supported audiences, attachments, acknowledgements and delivery channels precise? | ||||
| Routes, capacity and student transport assignmentsDoes the school need route records only, or live GPS, vehicles, stops and arrival estimates? | ||||
| Operational dashboards and traceable source recordsCan administrators move from a summary into the supported underlying workflow? |
03Role-specific experiencesA connected platform should not give every user the same overloaded interface.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Administrator experienceCan authorised administrators configure and review the supported school workflows? | ||||
| Teacher experienceCan a teacher move from schedule to the relevant class action with minimal navigation? | ||||
| Parent and multiple-child experienceCan parents reach the correct child-specific information and actions? | ||||
| Student experienceDoes the student see a focused school-day view rather than administrator complexity? |
04Web and mobile realitySeparate what can be used now from screenshots, prototypes and features promised for a future launch.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verified web availability for required workflowsCan each required workflow be completed in the release the school will receive? | ||||
| Verified iOS status and role coverageIs the iOS app live, coming at launch or only planned, and which roles are included? | ||||
| Verified Android status and role coverageIs the Android app live, coming at launch or only planned, and which roles are included? | ||||
| Written mobile feature-parity scopeIs mobile parity defined by role and workflow rather than a broad marketing statement? |
05Implementation and migrationA capable product can still fail when ownership, migration, validation and training remain vague.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial data-migration scope and ownershipDoes the written plan identify what will be migrated, who prepares it and how the school validates it? | ||||
| Configuration and acceptance processAre the school structure, roles, settings and acceptance checks defined? | ||||
| Role-specific staff trainingDoes training cover the people and workflows required for the first working day? | ||||
| Go-live plan, responsibilities and unresolved-item logIs there a practical sequence for activation and handling remaining issues? |
06Access, security and school dataPrefer evidence and precise boundaries over broad claims such as secure, enterprise-grade or best-in-class.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| School-scoped and role-aware accessCan the vendor demonstrate that each role reaches only the intended school and record context? | ||||
| Authentication and account-status workflowHow are accounts activated, authenticated, disabled and reviewed? | ||||
| Written data export, retention and deletion termsAre the school’s data rights and exit process stated in the agreement? | ||||
| Evidence behind public security claimsCan the vendor substantiate any certification, encryption, backup or uptime statement it makes? |
07Pricing and total costCompare the complete school cost, not only the headline subscription figure.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clear pricing basis and included school scopeIs the quote based on student count, users, modules, campuses or another measurable basis? | ||||
| Implementation, migration, training and support costsDoes the quote state which launch services are included and which are additional? | ||||
| Payment gateway, SMS and other third-party chargesAre transaction and provider charges separated from the software price? | ||||
| Renewal price, discount and increase methodCan the school understand how the next paid year will be calculated? |
08Support and exit readinessDefine what happens after activation—and what happens if the school later changes direction.
| Requirement | School priority | Vendor 1 | Vendor 2 | Vendor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support hours and response or resolution definitionsAre service hours, holidays, response times, resolution targets and exclusions distinguished? | ||||
| Named escalation and issue-ownership processDoes the school know where to raise an issue and who owns the next action? | ||||
| Data export and transition assistanceCan the school obtain its agreed data in a usable way if the relationship ends? |
Printable decision summary
Current comparison
The weighted score is a discussion aid, not an automatic purchase recommendation. Resolve every must-have gap and unverified answer before making a decision.
0% of requirements verified
Vendor 1
Unverified must-haves still need evidence before this is decision-ready.
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: School, board, academic-year, class and section structure?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: One clearly defined school or campus scope?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Named school and vendor decision owners?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Teacher attendance and authorised school or family views?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Fee structure, status, offline records and online parent payment?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Class and teacher timetable workflow?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Homework and protected study-material access?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Exam setup, marks, publishing and result views?
0% of requirements verified
Vendor 2
Unverified must-haves still need evidence before this is decision-ready.
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: School, board, academic-year, class and section structure?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: One clearly defined school or campus scope?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Named school and vendor decision owners?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Teacher attendance and authorised school or family views?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Fee structure, status, offline records and online parent payment?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Class and teacher timetable workflow?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Homework and protected study-material access?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Exam setup, marks, publishing and result views?
0% of requirements verified
Vendor 3
Unverified must-haves still need evidence before this is decision-ready.
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: School, board, academic-year, class and section structure?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: One clearly defined school or campus scope?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Named school and vendor decision owners?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Teacher attendance and authorised school or family views?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Fee structure, status, offline records and online parent payment?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Class and teacher timetable workflow?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Homework and protected study-material access?
- Can the vendor demonstrate and document: Exam setup, marks, publishing and result views?
School notes
No school notes have been added yet.
Use the result well
A score starts the decision; it does not finish it.
A high score can still hide a missing must-have, an unverified mobile promise or an unclear renewal term. Use the summary to structure the next conversation and preserve the school’s reasoning.
- 01
Agree priorities before the demonstrations.
School stakeholders should set Must-have, Important and Nice-to-have together so the weighting is not changed to favour a presentation.
- 02
Score only what has evidence.
Leave the answer as Needs confirmation until a workflow is demonstrated or documented. A verbal “yes” is a follow-up item, not proof.
- 03
Resolve every critical gap.
A vendor that misses a Must-have needs an acceptable alternative school process. Do not allow a high total score to conceal that gap.
- 04
Attach the summary to the decision record.
Print or save the final comparison, then record the chosen scope, open questions, owners and contractual confirmations.
Using the checklist
Questions about the comparison tool.
The guide is designed to remain useful without collecting contact information or declaring an automatic winner.
Does the vendor with the highest score automatically win?
No. The score helps organise evidence. The school should still resolve every critical must-have gap, unverified answer and contractual issue.
Does the checklist favour Schylva?
No vendor is pre-filled or awarded points. Remonthub’s relationship to Schylva is disclosed, and the same requirements and weighting apply to all three vendors.
Is our comparison submitted to Schylva or Remonthub?
No. The school name, vendor names, ratings and notes remain in the visitor’s browser and are not submitted by this tool.
Can we save the comparison as a document?
Yes. Use Print or save PDF to create a clean summary through the browser’s print function. No email address or form submission is required.