Every category where a model named Lectora for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Course authoring tools	Learning and development	0%	25 of 86	31%	13	criticized challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Lectora yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Lectora across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1	2
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	1	1
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	1
Mistral Small	0	1	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	1	0	0	1
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	0	0

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct6 labelsNone

Paraphrase0 labelsNone

Comparative15 labelsNone

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained4 labelsNone

Negative10 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative37 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“worth considering if you need large-scale governance, localization, or enterprise content ops” GPT-5.4 mini · Course authoring tools · direct prompt · alternative

“Other options to consider are iSpring Suite, Articulate Storyline 360, and Lectora” Llama 4 Maverick · Course authoring tools · budget prompt · alternative

“Lectora is ideal for regulated industries and serves learners with disabilities” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Course authoring tools · comparative prompt · alternative

“Strong on accessibility and compliance; desktop + online options.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · Course authoring tools · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“"powerful but not easy." ... steep learning curve, requires specialized technical knowledge, LMS integration issues” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Course authoring tools · negative prompt · soft negative

“such as Adobe Captivate or Lectora if you're a beginner or need the team productive quickly” Perplexity Sonar · Course authoring tools · negative prompt · soft negative

“Lectora is usually overkill and will slow your development down significantly” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Course authoring tools · negative prompt · soft negative

“Can be pricier... Usually not the first pick for a very limited budget” GPT-5.4 mini · Course authoring tools · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Lectora, over the 37 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Lectora was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Adobe Captivate32 of 370Not among the top eight

iSpring Suite31 of 373Not among the top eight

Articulate 36030 of 3722Not among the top eight

Elucidat25 of 370Not among the top eight

Easygenerator19 of 372Not among the top eight

dominKnow | ONE19 of 370Not among the top eight

Articulate Rise 36011 of 375Not among the top eight

H5P11 of 371Not among the top eight

Camtasia9 of 370Not among the top eight

Articulate Storyline7 of 371Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Lectora. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 32 of the 37 answers that named Lectora and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

elearningindustry.com21

colossyan.com20

gartner.com19

elearningsolutionslab.com15

confirm.com13

collab.thehumanco.org11

easygenerator.com11

atomisystems.com9

g2.com9

ispringsolutions.com9

No domain is on file for Lectora, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

colossyan.com/posts/elearning-authoring-tools-comparison-chart-for-2026-top-10-tools19

gartner.com/reviews/market/elearning-authoring-tools19

elearningsolutionslab.com/best-elearning-authoring-tools15

confirm.com/blog/elearning-authoring-tools12

collab.thehumanco.org/blog/best-elearning-authoring-tools11

elearning.adobe.com/2024/06/comparing-learning-authoring-tools-a-comprehensive-guide8

lingio.com/blog/elearning-authoring-tools8

atomisystems.com/elearning/the-ultimate-guide-to-selecting-business-training-software-20267

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Lectora

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Lectora; a claim can dispute any of them.

Lectora (by ELB Learning) 2Lectora (now ELB Learning) 1Lectora Online 1Lectora Online / Lectora Desktop 1

Follow Lectora

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Lectora's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Lectora, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

With a new claim: the vendor brief

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Lectora by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Lectora is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Lectora, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at the vendor's own domain is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.