Compare automated monitoring, post-exam review, and live oversight across staffing, evidence, integrations, candidate setup, and deployment.
7 solutions reviewed · Primary vendor sources · Checked 9 September 2026
Need real-time intervention?Choose live oversight.
Need a person to review evidence before a decision?Choose post-exam review.
Need scalable evidence capture?Choose automated monitoring.
Automated monitoringConfigured signals record session events and produce evidence for the institution's defined workflow.
Post-exam reviewDesignated reviewers examine relevant events after the session and before the institution confirms an outcome.
Live oversightLive proctors supervise sessions in real time, with configured signals helping prioritize attention.
Secure browser controlsRestrict apps and resources for approved exam configurations, used alone or with monitoring.
| Decision | Constructor Proctor | Ask every supplier |
|---|---|---|
| Oversight model | Automated monitoring, post-exam review, and live oversight can be configured for different exam policies. | Who monitors the session, who reviews evidence, and which modes require scheduling? |
| Final decision | The institution defines its integrity policy, review process, and decision authority. | Who can apply a sanction, and what evidence and appeal route are available? |
| Integrations | Constructor Assess and supported learning management system integrations are available. | Which exact LMS version is supported, and how do launch, roster, and result exchange work? |
| Candidate setup | Secure browser controls and a smartphone side view can be required for the approved configuration. | Which operating systems, browsers, permissions, bandwidth, and fallback steps are required? |
| Deployment and data | Cloud and private deployment options are defined during implementation. | Where is data hosted, which subprocessors are used, and how do retention, deletion, and access work? |
| Accommodations and accessibility | Exam settings can account for approved extra time, resources, and modified checks. | What current conformance evidence exists, and how will the complete candidate journey be tested? |
| Support | Coverage follows the service agreed for the program and chosen oversight model. | Which hours, channels, response targets, and peak-period capacity are included? |
| Total operating cost | Volume, configuration, reviewer model, and implementation scope affect the commercial proposal. | Include licensing, staffing, integration, support, retakes, and evidence-review time. |
Compare seven options by staffing, review, integration, candidate setup, and deployment.
Compare oversight, staffing, LMS fit, device requirements, and pilot questions.
Compare monitoring, review ownership, integrations, deployment, and candidate setup.
Compare service models, review timing, staffing, support, and program cost.
Compare browser controls, monitoring, live options, LMS fit, and exam configuration.
Compare human review, candidate setup, integration, and operating responsibilities.
Choose automated monitoring, post-exam review, or live oversight according to the assessment's stakes, risk, and staffing plan.
Confirm how sessions are prioritized, which events require review, and who applies the final decision policy.
Configure secure browser controls, permitted resources, device checks, and smartphone side-view requirements for the approved setup.
Test the exact LMS version, launch method, browser permissions, identity flow, and support escalation before rollout.
Give authorized reviewers session events and supporting evidence so they can apply the institution's policy and documented process.
Document which evidence reviewers can access, retain, export, annotate, and use during an appeal.
Define integrations, deployment, data handling, support, accommodations, and reviewer responsibilities before launch.
Test device checks, instructions, accommodations, privacy notices, and support routes with representative candidates.
Current roadmap themes under product review include broader assessment formats, richer environment and telemetry evidence, and more assistance for reviewers and integrity teams.
Expanded assessment formats
Environment and telemetry evidence
Reviewer assistance and integrity insights
Compare the oversight model, who reviews evidence, who makes the final decision, LMS and identity workflows, device requirements, accessibility evidence, deployment, data handling, support, and total operating cost. Ask suppliers to answer for your exact configuration.
No. Constructor Proctor can be used with Constructor Assess and supported learning management system integrations. Confirm the exact LMS version, launch method, roster flow, and result exchange during technical discovery.
The institution should define the policy, decision authority, review process, evidence standard, and appeal route. Monitoring signals and session evidence support that process; they should not be presented as an automatic sanction.
Constructor's published product information describes automated monitoring, post-exam review, and live oversight. The chosen configuration, reviewer responsibilities, scheduling, and support coverage should be confirmed for the program.
Use real assessment formats and representative candidates. Test onboarding, system checks, permitted resources, accommodations, secure browser behavior, evidence review, support escalation, peak demand, and the institution's final decision workflow.
Tell us about your assessments, candidates, and review model, and we will help you scope a pilot for the exact configuration you plan to buy.
