0
Learning platforms rarely live alone. A school might use Canvas for courses, a third party assessment engine for quizzes, a video platform for lectures, and a custom analytics layer for outcomes reporting. If each system speaks a different “language,” teams end up building one off integrations, duplicating content, and losing visibility into learner progress.
That’s why interoperability standards matter. SCORM, xAPI, and LTI solve different parts of the same problem: getting learning content, learning tools, and learning data to move reliably between systems. When you pick the right mix, you reduce integration cost, speed up launches, and keep reporting consistent even as your tech stack changes.
WHAT'S IN THE ARTICLE
Interoperability, split into three jobs
Interoperability in EdTech usually breaks down into three practical jobs: deliver learning content, connect external tools to the platform, and capture learning activity data in a way that can be reused.
SCORM, xAPI, and LTI each center on one of these jobs. They overlap a bit, but they are not interchangeable.
A simple way to remember the roles is:
- SCORM: package and play a course in an LMS, with basic tracking.
- xAPI: record learning events anywhere, store them in an LRS, analyze later.
- LTI: launch an external tool from an LMS securely, pass context, optionally pass grades back.
SCORM: portable course packages with LMS tracking
SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) is best known as the standard for “upload a zip file into the LMS and it just runs.” That zip contains web content (HTML/JavaScript/media) plus a manifest file that tells the LMS what’s inside and how to structure it.
When a learner launches a SCORM module, the content runs in the browser and communicates with the LMS through a JavaScript runtime API. The LMS stores a defined set of values: completion status, pass/fail, a score, session time, and a limited set of interactions depending on the version and the LMS implementation.
SCORM’s staying power comes from its portability. SCORM 1.2 remains widely supported, and many enterprise training catalogs still ship in SCORM format. If you are inheriting a legacy course library, SCORM support is often non negotiable.
Where SCORM tends to struggle is modern delivery and modern analytics. Content usually needs to run “inside” the LMS launch context to track reliably, and the data model is coarse. If you want to analyze exactly where learners drop off in a simulation or how they behave across devices, SCORM alone typically cannot get you there.
xAPI: event based learning records and the LRS
xAPI (Experience API, also called Tin Can) focuses on recording learning experiences as a stream of events. Instead of packaging rules, it defines a way to send statements to a Learning Record Store (LRS) over HTTP(S).
An xAPI statement is usually described as “Actor, Verb, Object,” often with extra context:
- “Alicia completed Safety Module 1”
- “Jordan answered Question 7 with choice B”
- “Sam watched Video 3 to 92%”
Because xAPI is API driven and system agnostic, almost anything can report learning activity: a mobile app, a VR simulation, a web portal, a kiosk, even offline experiences that sync later. That flexibility is the point.
The design tradeoff is governance. With SCORM, the LMS and content package already share an agreed data model. With xAPI, teams must decide which verbs, objects, and extensions they will use, how they identify users, and what “completion” really means across tools. Without that planning, you can end up with lots of data that is hard to compare.
If your product strategy depends on measurement, xAPI becomes attractive because you can treat learning like product analytics: instrumentation, funnels, segmentation, and outcomes correlation. You are not limited to “completed or not.”
LTI 1.3: secure tool launch that feels native to the LMS
LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) is about connecting platforms. An LMS can “launch” an external tool (a lab simulator, proctoring system, ebook platform, tutoring app) while passing the right context: who the user is, which course they are in, what role they have, and what resource they clicked.
Modern implementations are based on LTI 1.3 with LTI Advantage, which uses OpenID Connect and JWT based security. That forcing function is good. Older OAuth 1 based launches were simpler to implement quickly, yet harder to secure and standardize at scale.
LTI is frequently described as single sign on for learning tools, but it’s more than that. LTI Advantage adds standardized services like Deep Linking (so instructors can pick content inside the tool and place it into the course) and Assignment and Grade Services (so tools can return scores to the LMS gradebook).
What LTI does not try to do is capture rich behavioral analytics. An LMS can know that a learner launched a tool and received a grade back. The tool itself may track deeper behavior, but that is outside LTI’s scope unless you pair LTI with xAPI or another analytics approach.
Side by side comparison you can use in planning
Teams make faster decisions when they map standards to concrete implementation concerns: packaging, launch, identity, tracking depth, and data ownership.
| Dimension | SCORM | xAPI | LTI (1.3 + Advantage) |
| Primary job | Portable course delivery inside an LMS | Record learning events anywhere | Launch external tools from an LMS securely |
| Where content lives | Inside a SCORM zip imported into the LMS | Anywhere (no required package) | At the tool provider (external system) |
| How it connects | Browser based JS API calls to LMS runtime | REST API statements to an LRS | OIDC login + JWT launch, optional service APIs |
| Typical data captured | Completion, pass/fail, score, time | Any event you define with statement design | Launch context, optional grades, optional roster and deep linking services |
| Offline and mobile | Limited and often fragile | Strong support (store and forward) | Depends on the external tool |
| Best fit | Legacy courses, compliance modules, “upload and track” | Analytics heavy products, multi device learning, simulations | Best of breed tool ecosystems inside an LMS |
Looking to Build an MVP without worries about strategy planning?
EVNE Developers is a dedicated software development team with a product mindset.
We’ll be happy to help you turn your idea into life and successfully monetize it.
Common architecture patterns in real products
Many modern implementations use more than one standard. That’s not overengineering. It’s usually the simplest way to cover content delivery, tool access, and analytics without forcing a single standard to do a job it was not designed for.
A few patterns show up repeatedly:
- SCORM + LMS reporting: stable for compliance style training, limited analytics.
- LTI for tools + LMS gradebook: best for higher education ecosystems and publisher integrations.
- LTI + xAPI: LTI handles secure launch and context, xAPI captures what happened inside the tool into an LRS.
- SCORM + xAPI (via wrappers or cmi5): keep the packaging convenience of courses, add richer event tracking and better portability of records.
If you are building a new platform, the biggest decision is rarely “which standard is best.” It’s “where will the system of record live” for learner progress and outcomes. LMS centric reporting pushes you toward SCORM and LTI grades. Analytics centric reporting pushes you toward xAPI and an LRS, with the LMS treated as one interface among many.
Implementation decision points that affect cost and timelines
The standards themselves are only part of the scope. The harder work is in identity, data modeling, and operational security.
After teams map requirements, these questions usually determine complexity:
- Who owns the learning record: the LMS, the external tool, or a centralized LRS?
- What counts as completion: a grade, a set of actions, time on task, or mastery evidence?
- How users are identified across systems: email, opaque IDs, SIS identifiers, or federated identity.
- Security and privacy constraints: FERPA, GDPR, HIPAA style controls, tenant isolation, audit logs.
Those items drive architecture, not just compliance with a spec.
From a delivery standpoint, it helps to treat interoperability as product work, not plumbing. You can start with a narrow slice that proves value, then expand.
A practical sequencing many teams follow is:
- Phase 1: LTI launch + grade return for a single workflow.
- Phase 2: Add xAPI statements for the key learning events tied to outcomes.
- Phase 3: Standardize vocabularies, dashboards, and data exports.
- Phase 4: Add SCORM import only if you have a real content portability need.
Proving the Concept for FinTech Startup with a Smart Algorithm for Detecting Subscriptions
Scaling from Prototype into a User-Friendly and Conversational Marketing Platform
What to ask before you commit to SCORM, xAPI, or LTI
Interoperability is easiest when requirements are explicit early. Whether you’re buying an LMS, integrating a tool, or building a custom platform, a few questions prevent expensive rework.
Start with these:
- Standards and versions: Which versions are supported (SCORM 1.2 vs 2004, LTI 1.3 with Advantage), and is support certified or “best effort”?
- Tracking depth: What do you actually get in reports (one score, per question events, time series analytics)?
- Data access: Can you export raw statements or results reliably, and can you query them through APIs?
- Identity mapping: How are users linked across systems, and what happens when an identifier changes?
- Operational safeguards: What are the controls for key rotation, audit logs, rate limits, and tenant isolation?
If you are working with a product development partner like EVNE Developers, it also helps to clarify the desired business metrics up front. Interoperability work pays off when it reduces support load, shortens onboarding, increases course completion, or improves measurement of learning effectiveness. The standards are a means to that end.
Need Checking What Your Product Market is Able to Offer?
EVNE Developers is a dedicated software development team with a product mindset.
We’ll be happy to help you turn your idea into life and successfully monetize it.
Conclusion
If your goal is to reuse packaged courses across multiple LMSs, SCORM is still the default. If your goal is to plug external tools into an LMS with secure access and grade return, LTI is the fastest path. If your goal is to measure learning behavior across devices and experiences, xAPI and an LRS provide the backbone.
Most teams land on a combined approach because real learning products need all three capabilities: content portability, tool connectivity, and trustworthy data. The win is not theoretical interoperability. The win is shipping faster with fewer custom integrations and clearer metrics you can act on.
The choice depends on your needs:
Use SCORM for traditional eLearning courses that require basic tracking within an LMS.
Choose xAPI if you need to track a wide range of learning experiences, including offline and informal learning.
Opt for LTI if you want to integrate third-party tools or content directly into your LMS.
While SCORM, xAPI, and LTI serve different purposes, they can often be used together within a modern LMS. Many platforms support all three standards, allowing organizations to leverage the strengths of each.
Most modern LMS platforms support SCORM and LTI, and many are adding support for xAPI. It’s important to check your LMS documentation or consult with your provider to confirm compatibility.
xAPI is considered a successor to SCORM due to its advanced tracking capabilities, but SCORM remains widely used. Many organizations use both standards depending on their specific requirements.
About author
Roman Bondarenko is the CEO of EVNE Developers. He is an expert in software development and technological entrepreneurship and has 10+years of experience in digital transformation consulting in Healthcare, FinTech, Supply Chain and Logistics.
Author | CEO EVNE Developers
