Centre de ressources

The National Payroll Institute issues two professional designations, the Payroll Compliance Professional and the Payroll Leadership Professional, held today by more than 21,000 members. Integrity is one of NPI's four core values, so when the COVID-19 pandemic forced a rapid shift away from honor-based, supervisor-led proctoring, NPI needed an online solution that could uphold that standard at scale.

Key Outcomes

• 57% reduction in academic integrity incidents, from an average of 86 per month down to 37
• Fewer than 1% of users require technical support
• More than 30,000 exams proctored with a seamless experience

Challenge

NPI's first attempt at online proctoring didn't hold up. The system required plugin downloads, ran on a limited set of browsers, and offered no French-language support for the 12% of NPI's membership that operates in French. Close to half of students hit a technical issue during their exam. For a body responsible for validating the competency of more than 17,000 PCP and 4,000 PLP designation holders, that wasn't a minor inconvenience. It was a threat to the credibility of the credential itself.

{{post-block-quote}}

A Complete Transformation in User Experience

After switching to Integrity Advocate, the technical support burden that used to consume staff time became close to invisible. Integration with NPI's D2L Brightspace LMS meant students could move directly from coursework into a proctored exam without separate logins or downloads, and the entire implementation took a single 45-minute setup meeting, compared to weeks of troubleshooting under the previous system.

"We're getting very little feedback," Pacella said. "And that's amazing. That speaks volumes. That's exactly what we want. You don't hear about software that works well typically... But if it didn't work, you better believe we're going to hear about it a lot."

Dramatic Improvement in Academic Integrity

Paired with a proactive integrity education module, NPI's average dropped from 86 incidents per month to 37, a reduction of more than half, and the improvement held steady over time.

"We went from an average of 86 incidents per month, and it dropped more than in half, down to 37," Pacella said. "And that's been very consistent since we implemented some of these resources and things for people to understand what academic integrity means."

The reduction wasn't just about fewer incidents. It was about quality. The incidents that remained were genuine violations, not technical false positives or misunderstandings about proctoring protocols. That let NPI's review committees spend their time on legitimate concerns instead of sorting through noise, producing more consistent, more defensible decisions.

Seamless Student Experience

Daniela Kwiatkowski, NPI's Manager of Learning and Professional Development, experienced the system firsthand when she took one of NPI's own courses. Her experience highlighted how the technology disappeared into the background, letting students focus on demonstrating their professional competency.

"Before you do it for the first time, you're thinking, how am I going to do this?" Kwiatkowski said. "I moved the camera to one corner and then I forgot about it, and it was easy to forget about it. It wasn't constantly there... now I could focus on the exam, which is what we want people to do."

Scaling Success Across the Organization

NPI's growth didn't stop once the technical problems were solved. According to Steven Van Alstine, Vice President of Professional Standards and Education, NPI moved from proctoring a few thousand students to e-proctoring every student pursuing the Payroll Compliance Professional designation, a ramp-up that happened in under three months.

"We were able to scale that up dramatically through our move to D2L Brightspace and the integration with Integrity Advocate," Van Alstine said. "There was a point at which we maybe had a few thousand students being e-proctored, to the point now where every one of our students is e-proctored... and that ramp-up happened in less than three months."

That rapid scaling extended across NPI's mixed delivery model, including partnerships with public and private academic institutions alongside direct-to-student programs, without requiring different standards across channels.

Administrative Efficiency and Confidence

Decision-making that previously took weeks now happens within 48 hours, with clear evidence and streamlined processes. The administrative team developed communication templates and tracking systems to ensure consistent, fair handling of every incident.

"Giving someone a zero on an exam or failing a course is a big deal," Kwiatkowski said. "I cannot emphasize it enough... Having the peace of mind to know this is an incident that was flagged for the right reasons... we are very confident that this is legitimate."

Advice for Other Organizations

NPI's guidance to other certifying bodies is straightforward: technical due diligence up front saves significant time later.

"There are a lot of products out there," Pacella said. "And you're going to reach out to them, and the sales team will talk a big game about all the wonderful things they can do. Take your time and understand the technical aspects of implementation before making a decision."

{{post-cta}}

Choosing the right online proctoring software shouldn't mean choosing between security and privacy, or between effectiveness and ease of use. If you're evaluating an Honorlock alternative, you're likely weighing concerns about invasive monitoring, student privacy, false positives, and Honorlock pricing against your need for reliable exam security.

This online proctoring comparison breaks down the key differences between Integrity Advocate and Honorlock to help you make an informed decision for your institution's remote proctoring needs.

What Honorlock Does Well

Honorlock has established itself as a prominent online exam proctoring company in the higher education space. Before exploring an Honorlock alternative, it's worth understanding what this online proctoring platform offers. Honorlock provides several compelling features:

Advanced Security Features – Honorlock provides exam protection through AI-blocking capabilities, a lockdown browser for exams, and voice detection that catches commands like "Hey Siri." Their browser lockdown for exams prevents students from accessing unauthorized content. As a secure browser for online exams, Honorlock's exam lockdown browser creates a controlled testing environment.

Market Presence – With a significant footprint in higher education, Honorlock has built partnerships with numerous institutions and maintains strong reviews from administrators (student reviews tell a different story).

Customer Support – Users consistently report positive experiences with Honorlock's support team, which can be crucial when technical issues arise during high-stakes proctored exam periods.

Where Honorlock Falls Short

Despite these strengths, Honorlock's approach creates significant challenges that have many institutions searching for the best alternative to Honorlock:

Privacy

Data Storage – Honorlock records complete video and audio for every student session, including ID verification photos. Exam information is saved including ID verification and video recordings of exam takers, all stored for extended periods. In an era of increasing data breaches, institutions using this online proctoring service must ask: what happens when that sensitive student data falls into the wrong hands? Many organizations have responded by using Honorlock alongside less invasive proctoring tools like Respondus, forcing faculty and students to navigate multiple proctoring systems, creating frustration and a disjointed assessment security ecosystem.

Invasive Monitoring – Proctors monitor exam takers during the exam in real-time, creating a stressful testing environment. This live surveillance approach contributes to student anxiety and creates an unnecessarily intrusive experience.

Poor Student Experience – While administrators rate this remote proctoring software favorably, student reviews tell a different story. Test takers rate Honorlock approximately 1.1 out of 5 stars across thousands of reviews, citing the invasive nature of full session recording and frequent disruptions during exams.

False Positive Epidemic – One of the most frequently cited complaints about this online proctoring platform involves false flags that interrupt students during exams or create unnecessary review work for administrators. These false positives undermine both the testing experience and administrative efficiency.

Flexibility  

Technical Limitations – Honorlock is Chrome only, creating major compatibility issues for students using other browsers. The platform doesn't work on phones, iPads, or tablets, limiting accessibility. Additionally, features like "Cell Phone Detection" rely on outdated technology that doesn't function as advertised. Students must install a Chrome extension just to take exams, adding unnecessary friction to the testing process.

Limited LMS Integration – Unlike flexible proctoring solutions, Honorlock offers only limited LMS integrations, restricting choice and potentially requiring workarounds.

Complexity and Cost – Honorlock pricing is among the highest in the industry. This makes them one of the most expensive online proctoring vendors. The pricing structure isn't customizable for high stakes and low stakes exams—institutions pay premium rates regardless of exam type. Only their most expensive packages offer full-exam human review, meaning budget-conscious institutions must settle for automated-only monitoring. More complicated features and reporting add time for test admins, increasing the total cost of ownership. Combined with premium Honorlock pricing and the requirement to install Chrome extensions, these complications strain both budgets and IT resources.

An Honorlock Alternative Built for Institutions, Not Surveillance

Integrity Advocate was built from the ground up to address the fundamental problems with traditional online exam proctoring. We built our software to be non-invasive, limit data storage, and remain simple for end users. As a leading Honorlock alternative, we offer enterprise online proctoring that prioritizes privacy and simplicity.

Side-by-Side: Why Institutions Choose Integrity Advocate as an Honorlock Alternative

Universal Compatibility vs. Chrome-Only Limitations

• Integrity Advocate: Works with any LMS, any browser, any device - including phones, iPads, and tablets
• Honorlock: Chrome only, limited LMS integrations, no mobile device support

Privacy-First vs. Mass Data Collection

• Integrity Advocate: Non-invasive monitoring with no live surveillance. We discard unnecessary data after review and only keep rule violations
• Honorlock: Exam information is saved including ID verification and video recordings of exam takers. Proctors monitor exam takers during the exam

Simple Access vs. Required Installation

• Integrity Advocate: No installation required - students start testing immediately
• Honorlock: Must install Chrome extension before each exam

Human Review Included vs. Premium-Only

• Integrity Advocate: Fully human reviewed, every time as standard across all packages
• Honorlock: Only most expensive packages offer full-exam human review

Flexible Pricing vs. One-Size-Fits-All

• Integrity Advocate: Pricing customizable for different exam types - pay less for low stakes exams, invest appropriately in high stakes assessments
• Honorlock: Pricing not customizable for high stakes and low stakes exams

Streamlined Software vs. Administrative Burden

• Integrity Advocate: Simple, straightforward software that saves test admins time
• Honorlock: More complicated features and reporting adds time for test admins

Privacy by Design, Not as an Afterthought

Unlike Honorlock and similar online proctoring vendors that store images and videos from every student session, Integrity Advocate offers a Honorlock alternative that eliminates this risk entirely. Our approach to secure online exams is fundamentally different:

• No mass video storage – We don't record and retain videos of every exam session, just flagged violations
• Minimal ID verification retention – We don't keep ID verification images.
• Data deletion by default – Human proctors review sessions, send any flagged violations to the exam administrator for review, then the data is deleted
• Only violations stored – We discard unnecessary data after review and only keep what's actually necessary: rule violations; this not only minimizes privacy risk, but also saves test administrators time because there is no more sifting through hours of compliant sessions. We do the heavy lifting for you. 

This isn't just a privacy feature; it's a liability reduction strategy for secure online assessments. When you don't store sensitive student data long-term, you eliminate the risk of that data being compromised in a breach - a critical consideration when comparing online proctoring services.

Human Review for Every Session - Without the Intrusion

Every single Integrity Advocate session is fully human reviewed, every time, making us stand out among virtual proctoring services. But unlike Honorlock, where live proctors monitor exam takers during the exam with “pop-ins” (creating disruption and anxiety), our review happens after the exam is complete - making it truly non-invasive.

Our remote proctoring software uses AI technology to flag potential issues during the exam, then a human proctor reviews the session immediately afterward to validate the results without invasive live monitoring. This approach to remote exam proctoring means:

• No interruptions – Students complete exams without someone watching them in real-time
• Consistent quality – Human review is standard across all packages, not reserved for premium tiers like Honorlock
• More accurate flagging – Human validation with the entire session context reduces false positives that plague automated-only proctoring tools
• Better student experience – Test takers aren't subjected to the psychological pressure of live monitoring, which reduces anxiety and creates a better test experience 

Simplicity That Actually Works

Proctoring software doesn't need to be complicated to be effective. Our online proctoring system works with any LMS, any browser, and any device - including phones, iPads, and tablets. 

True Flexibility for Any Exam – We make it easy for test administrators to select any exam type they're proctoring (high stakes, mid stakes, low stakes) and have the rules automatically configured. Unlike Honorlock's pricing that's not customizable for different exam types, our flexible approach means you can proctor different tests differently without managing complex settings or paying premium rates for every assessment.

One Solution, Multiple Use Cases – Replace multiple proctoring services with one flexible online proctoring platform. Because we work with any LMS and don't require specific browser extensions, our remote proctoring services work consistently across your entire testing environment. Integrity Advocate has no Chrome-only limitations, device, or limited LMS integrations.

Simple, Straightforward Software That Saves Test Admins Time – While more complicated features and reporting adds time for test admins in platforms like Honorlock, Integrity Advocate streamlines the entire process. Our intuitive interface means less training, fewer support tickets, and more time focused on education rather than troubleshooting technology.

Budget-Friendly Pricing – Effective online exam security shouldn't require premium pricing. When comparing Honorlock pricing to ours, institutions find we respect institutional budgets while delivering human-reviewed proctoring for every session. This is a feature Honorlock reserves for its most expensive tier. Our approach to enterprise online proctoring delivers more value at a lower cost, with pricing that adapts to your actual needs.

The Honorlock Alternative: Making the Right Choice for Your Organization

When evaluating Honorlock vs online proctoring solutions focused on privacy and simplicity, consider what matters most to your organization:

Choose Honorlock if: You need advanced features, work exclusively within Chrome environments, and have the budget for a premium online exam proctoring solution. Your institution also needs to be prepared to manage student privacy concerns (exam information is saved including ID verification and video recordings), potential backlash over proctors monitoring exam takers during exams, device limitations (no phones, iPads, or tablets), the requirement that students must install Chrome extensions, and limited LMS integrations.

Choose Integrity Advocate as the best Honorlock alternative if: You want effective online exam security without compromising student privacy, need proctoring software that works with any LMS, any browser, and any device (including phones, iPads, and tablets), value fully human reviewed sessions every time without premium pricing, require no installation for seamless student access, prefer non-invasive monitoring over live surveillance, want simple, straightforward software that saves test admins time, need pricing customizable for different exam types, and prioritize discarding unnecessary data while only keeping rule violations. If reducing institutional liability around data storage and improving the student testing experience are priorities, Integrity Advocate is the clear choice among online proctoring vendors.

The Bottom Line: Best Proctoring Software for Privacy-First Institutions

Online proctoring companies like Honorlock have built robust feature sets, but those features come with significant trade-offs: invasive monitoring where proctors watch exam takers during exams, extensive data storage where exam information is saved including ID verification and video recordings, Chrome-only compatibility with no phones, iPads, or tablets support, required Chrome extension installation, poor student experience, limited LMS integrations, and complicated proctoring systems where more features add time for test admins.

Integrity Advocate offers a smarter Honorlock alternative for online proctoring. You don't need to extensively store every exam session or ID verification image to maintain exam integrity. Every session is fully human reviewed as standard—not just in premium packages. Our privacy-first data practices discard unnecessary data after review and only keep rule violations. The software is simple and straightforward, saving test admins time. There's no installation required and monitoring is non-invasive. It's compatible with any LMS, any browser, and any device. Pricing is customizable for both high stakes and low stakes exams. We deliver the best proctoring software without the compromises.

When conducting an online proctoring comparison, the question isn't whether you need remote proctoring. It's whether your proctoring platform should create more problems than it solves. Among exam proctoring companies, we stand apart by prioritizing what matters most: privacy, universal accessibility, user experience, effectiveness, and value.

Ready to see the difference? Discover why institutions are switching from Honorlock to Integrity Advocate for a privacy-first, human-reviewed approach to online proctoring. Experience the best online proctoring software that combines secure online assessments with respect for student privacy—without the Chrome-only limitations, installation requirements, live monitoring, or premium Honorlock pricing. Contact us today to learn more about our remote proctoring services and why we're the best alternative to Honorlock.

{{post-cta}}

In 2025, one theme rose above all others in the world of online proctoring: privacy is now a deciding factor in whether organizations adopt, keep, or replace their proctoring vendor. As remote exams and digital credentialing continue to scale, institutions are realizing that effective proctoring isn’t just about stopping misconduct, it’s about doing it in a way that respects the people behind every assessment. This shift has been driven by a few powerful forces:

• growing public discomfort with invasive surveillance
• stricter global and institutional data protection requirements
• accreditation bodies demanding clearer, more defensible privacy practices
• test-takers becoming more vocal about what they will, and won’t, accept

It’s no longer enough to secure exams; organizations also have to secure trust. And that begins with privacy.

From “Nice to Have” to Non-Negotiable

Only a few years ago, privacy considerations were something addressed near the end of a vendor evaluation. Today, they’re the starting point. Learners, legal teams, regulators, and internal privacy officers are asking tougher, more detailed questions:

• What exactly is being recorded?
• How long is the data stored, and who can access it?
• Do test-takers have to install software on personal devices?
• Is biometric data being captured or saved?
• Does the system monitor more than is truly needed?

These aren’t niche concerns, they’re fundamental expectations. And when programs can’t answer these questions confidently, trust and adoption suffer.

This is why privacy-first proctoring has moved from a helpful differentiator to a baseline requirement for any institution serious about delivering fair, modern, and defensible assessments.

What Privacy-First Proctoring Actually Means

Many proctoring tools call themselves “privacy-friendly,” but privacy-first is something different. It’s not a marketing angle, it’s an architectural choice. It shapes how the system is built, what data it collects, and how it interacts with both learners and administrators.

Here’s what privacy-first looks like in practice with Integrity Advocate:

1. Minimal Data Collection: Only What’s Necessary

Integrity Advocate collects only what is needed to confirm identity and verify participation. No scanning of personal files, no continuous background monitoring, no broad access to the device.

This approach aligns with global data minimization standards and simplifies conversations with privacy and compliance teams.

2. A No-Install, Browser-Based Experience

Because Integrity Advocate runs directly in the browser and works within your LMS, there’s no software to download or manage, which means:

• No risk of lingering software on personal devices
• No conflicts with corporate firewalls
• Fewer technical issues and exam-day barriers
• A far less intrusive experience for test-takers

Privacy improves, and so does usability.

3. No Biometric Template Storage

While some proctoring tools rely on building biometric profiles, Integrity Advocate verifies identity without storing facial templates or other high-risk biometric data.

With global privacy regulations tightening, avoiding biometric storage removes one of the most sensitive risk categories for institutions.

4. Clear, Time-Bound Retention and Encrypted Storage

Transparency matters. Institutions want to know:

• how long exam data is kept
• how it’s encrypted
• who can access it
• when and how it’s deleted

Integrity Advocate supports strict retention timelines and secure storage practices, reducing long-term exposure and easing accreditation and audit reviews.

5. Privacy by Design, Not Added Later

Every feature of Integrity Advocate, from identity verification to participation monitoring to human review, is built with privacy constraints in mind. We don’t add privacy after development; we design around it from the start.

That mindset results in a system that is respectful, compliant, and aligned with the expectations of modern digital assessment.

Why Privacy-First Proctoring Will Lead Vendor Decisions in 2026

The move toward privacy-first proctoring isn’t slowing down, it’s accelerating. Several trends point to why institutions will prioritize these solutions in the coming year:

1. Regulatory and Accreditation Requirements Are Rising

Regulatory environments worldwide are becoming more prescriptive about personal data use. Institutions are expected to demonstrate:

• data minimization
• justified data collection
• documented retention and deletion practices
• strong encryption protocols
• thoughtful handling of sensitive data

A privacy-first proctoring partner reduces compliance burden and institutional risk.

2. Learner Trust Drives Program Success

When test-takers feel uncomfortable or monitored too aggressively, exam anxiety rises, completion rates fall, and complaints increase. Trust isn’t just a philosophical concept, it affects outcomes.

Privacy-first proctoring improves the entire assessment experience by reducing friction and creating a clearer, more respectful process for learners.

3. Usability and Privacy Are Now Interconnected

Many of the decisions that protect privacy also make proctoring easier to use:

• No installs → fewer technical failures
• Minimal monitoring → fewer permissions and pop-ups
• Embedded LMS workflows → less confusion for learners
• Transparent policies → fewer escalations on exam day

When privacy improves, usability improves, and your program benefits immediately.

4. Intrusive Tools Are Becoming Harder to Justify

Solutions that require extensive device access, deep installs, or full desktop monitoring are facing increasing resistance, from learners, privacy teams, IT departments, and regulators.

Organizations that adopted heavy client-based tools early in the remote testing surge are now looking for alternatives that carry less risk, less friction, and less complexity.

Privacy-first proctoring offers exactly that.

Privacy-First Doesn’t Mean Less Secure, It Means More Responsible

A common misconception is that privacy-first design compromises security. In reality, the opposite is true. Effective proctoring is not about collecting more data; it’s about collecting the right data in the right way.

Integrity Advocate balances:

• identity verification
• participation and engagement monitoring
• AI-assisted analysis
• human oversight for context
• transparent, reviewable reporting

This approach strengthens fairness, defensibility, and trust without relying on invasive surveillance.

As You Plan for 2026, Privacy Should Lead the Conversation

As institutions prepare for the next evolution of remote and hybrid assessment, a few key questions can guide whether your current proctoring approach is still the right fit:

• Can we clearly explain the data our proctoring tool collects and why?
• Would our privacy or legal teams feel comfortable defending these practices?
• Are learners confident and comfortable using our current system?
• Do we rely on unnecessary installs or device access we’d prefer to avoid?
• Would our approach hold up under accreditation or regulatory review?

If any of these questions reveal uncertainty, a privacy-first model may be the solution your program needs.

See How Privacy-First Proctoring Strengthens Both Trust and Integrity

Integrity Advocate proves that you don’t have to choose between protecting exams and protecting people. You can uphold integrity, support fairness, and respect privacy, all within one streamlined, secure solution.

If strengthening trust, improving usability, or modernizing your assessment strategy is on your roadmap for 2026, we’d be happy to show you how privacy-first proctoring can support your goals.

Book a Demo with Integrity Advocate

{{post-cta}}

The Online Exam Proctoring Market: 2025 Edition report confirms what many institutions, certification bodies, and training organizations already feel: remote assessment has officially entered a new era. The market is expanding rapidly, expectations around privacy are rising, and organizations are demanding solutions that deliver security without unnecessary intrusion.

Below is a breakdown of the report’s most important findings, and how Integrity Advocate stands out as the solution designed for 2025 and beyond.

1. The Market Is Growing, Fast

The report shows the global online proctoring market reached $945.62M in 2024 and is projected to more than double to $2.19B by 2030 (CAGR 15.11%).

This growth isn’t just about more online learning. Organizations worldwide are searching for scalable, reliable, and compliant ways to maintain exam integrity across:

• Higher education
• Certification & licensing bodies
• Government programs
• Workforce and safety training

As budgets tighten and expectations rise, solutions that require no installation, no scheduling, and minimal administrative overhead are becoming the preferred option. Integrity Advocate offers exactly that, a secure, streamlined workflow that doesn’t weigh down learners or admins.

2. Human Oversight Remains Essential, Even as AI Accelerates

The report notes that human-centered models still dominate: live proctoring accounts for 50.59% of market share in 2024.

This underscores a key truth: Organizations want the accuracy and fairness that only human context can provide.

Automation alone simply isn’t trusted to make final decisions, especially when exam outcomes impact careers, credentials, or safety-sensitive roles.

Integrity Advocate was built on hybrid oversight long before it became an industry trend.

• AI handles scale efficiently
• Human reviewers validate context, tone, and intent
• Reports focus on clarity, not confusion

This means fewer false positives, fewer escalations, and far better outcomes for both administrators and exam takers, all without the invasiveness of live video monitoring.

3. Education Leads Today, But Enterprise Growth Is Surging

Education continues to be the largest segment, representing 53.18% of worldwide demand in 2024. Government and enterprise follow at 24.58% and 22.24% respectively.

The trend lines are clear: Remote certification, upskilling, and workforce credentialing are becoming standard across industries.

Integrity Advocate serves all three segments with equal strength:

• Education: seamless LMS integration + student-centric privacy
• Government: audit-ready documentation + compliance built in
• Enterprise & safety-critical industries: identity verification + fair, scalable oversight on any device

The same lightweight workflow works everywhere, reducing IT strain and increasing adoption speed.

4. North America Continues to Lead, Driven by Privacy Expectations

North America accounts for 41.50% of the global market, making it the most mature and demanding region.

What’s accelerating adoption?

• Digital learning expansion
• High compliance standards
• Stronger expectations around data privacy
• Growing discomfort with intrusive surveillance tools

Unlike legacy proctoring platforms, Integrity Advocate rejects the “collect everything” model. We are the only privacy-first provider that:

• Stores no biometric data
• Captures the minimum data required
• Avoids unnecessary device lockdowns
• Ensures exam-taker dignity and transparency

As privacy regulations tighten, this approach isn’t just preferred, it’s becoming required.

5. AI Adoption Is Rising, But Hybrid Models Are the Future

The report emphasizes increasing demand for AI-powered proctoring complemented by human review, not replaced by it. Industry-wide, this hybrid approach is considered more fair, more accurate, and more defensible.

Integrity Advocate has championed hybrid oversight from the beginning. Our approach ensures:

• Higher accuracy
• Lower administrative burden
• More trust from learners
• Reduced technical friction
• Better transparency in flagged events

It's everything institutions want, without the invasiveness they’ve grown tired of.

Why Integrity Advocate Is Emerging as the Clear Leader in 2026 and beyond

The trends are unmistakable, and they all point toward a solution like ours:

• Privacy-first: A direct answer to rising concerns about surveillance and data overreach.
• Hybrid Proctoring: Aligns with the report’s confirmation that human oversight remains essential.
• No-install simplicity: A critical differentiator as organizations scale online assessment.
• Seamless LMS integration: Meeting institutions exactly where they are, not forcing new systems.
• Audit-ready reporting: Reducing administrative workload and increasing compliance confidence.
• Scalable across sectors: Education, enterprise, associations, licensing boards, government, the same streamlined workflow supports them all.

Final Takeaway: The Market Is Evolving, Integrity Advocate Already Has

The report makes it clear that organizations increasingly want security + privacy, AI + human context, and scalable + simple workflows.

Integrity Advocate isn’t adapting to these trends, we were built for them.

If your institution or organization is preparing for the next chapter of online assessment, we’d love to walk you through how a privacy-first, human-backed approach can transform your testing experience. Feel free to schedule a demo here.

{{post-cta}}

The EXG2025 Conference brought together leaders in testing, credentialing, AI, automation, and digital governance for one of the most forward-looking events of the year. Organizations across industries are moving from experimentation to real-world implementation, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence, operational automation, and trust-centered innovation.

This recap highlights the most important insights from EXG2025, including trends shaping 2025, practical case studies, and why responsible technology adoption matters now more than ever.

What EXG2025 Revealed About the Future of Digital Governance

The central message at EXG2025 was clear: innovation must be built on integrity. As AI and automated systems become embedded across organizations, trust, transparency, and accountability are essential for long-term success.

Speakers repeatedly emphasized that technology moves fast, but organizations must move responsibly.

Key themes included:

• Governance models that prioritize transparency
• Responsible AI frameworks
• Human-in-the-loop oversight
• Data protection and ethical automation
• Cross-functional alignment to accelerate innovation

These themes provided a roadmap for organizations navigating rapid transformation.

Top EXG2025 Takeaways for Organizations in 2025

1. AI Adoption Is Accelerating Across All Sectors

EXG2025 showcased how quickly artificial intelligence is moving from R&D environments into production workflows. From risk scoring and content analysis to operational efficiencies, AI is now central to digital transformation strategies.

The organizations finding the most success are those implementing AI with clear governance, strong oversight, and people-first design.

2. Automation Is Driving Efficiency, But People Still Lead

Automation tools are maturing, and this year’s conference highlighted how they are reducing friction and improving accuracy across credentialing, compliance, and testing ecosystems.

Importantly, EXG2025 reinforced that automation should support, not replace, human decision-making. Human oversight remains the anchor for any trustworthy system.

3. Cross-Team Collaboration Is a Competitive Advantage

A recurring message across sessions was that organizations succeed when technology, compliance, operations, and leadership collaborate from the start.

Integrated teams are delivering faster progress and better outcomes, especially when implementing new technologies like AI and advanced security models.

4. Real-World Demos Showed That Emerging Tech Is Solving Problems Today

This year’s demos and case studies were more mature and actionable than ever before. From secure credentialing workflows to AI-assisted analysis tools, EXG2025 demonstrated how emerging technologies are producing measurable results.

The shift from ideas to implementation was one of the strongest signals of the conference.

Why Responsible Innovation Matters in 2025

A core message throughout EXG2025 was that trust is the foundation of every digital system. Whether deploying AI, modernizing governance processes, or scaling automated workflows, successful organizations are those that prioritize:

• Transparency
• Ethical decision-making
• Clear governance frameworks
• Integrity in testing and credentialing
• Human-centered oversight

These values weren’t just mentioned; they were woven into every panel, workshop, and peer conversation. I must say that I was impressed with even fellow vendors talking about this across the board. It's great to see our peers are embracing this responsibility. 

Community, Collaboration, and Integrity: The Heart of EXG2025

Beyond the technical insights, EXG2025 highlighted the importance of community and collaboration. The connections, discussions, and shared problem-solving were as impactful as the sessions themselves.

At Integrity Advocate, our team continues to push forward with solutions that support responsible innovation, secure environments, and trust-centered digital governance.

EXG2025 set a clear direction for the year ahead and we’re excited to put these insights into action.

{{post-cta}}

A welfare economics class at Brown University took a take-home midterm this spring. The average score was 96 percent, well above the course's historical range of 65 to 80 percent. When the professor moved the final exam in person, the average dropped to 48.6 percent, a result he called a historic low for the course. Nineteen students ultimately failed.

That gap is the story. It is not really about one professor, one class, or one university. It is about what happens when an assessment has no layer of oversight between the moment a student submits an answer and the moment a grade gets issued.

What happened in the Brown University case

According to Inside Higher Ed, economics professor Roberto Serrano gave a take-home midterm for the first time in nearly two decades of teaching the course, largely to accommodate students who did not want to sit in a classroom exam after a shooting on campus in December. Enrollment in the class had also grown to 86 students, up from a typical 30, which he attributed to the promised take-home format.

When the midterm scores came back unusually high, he and his graders ran the exam through ChatGPT. Separate reporting from Fox News Digital puts a finer point on the scale of it: 40 students earned a perfect score on the midterm. The AI produced answers that closely resembled what his students had submitted, using a proof method that technically worked but read as unnatural for the level of the course. He told students he suspected widespread AI use and switched the final exam to an in-person, closed-book format. Eighteen students dropped the class outright, and nine more stayed enrolled but skipped the final exam entirely, meaning 27 students in total did not sit for it. Of those 27, 22 had scored a perfect 100 on the midterm. The final exam, taken by the 59 students who remained, averaged 48.6 percent, compared with a historical low of 65 percent for the course. The midterm was voided.

The university's response has been a point of dispute. As of the initial reporting on July 8, Serrano described the process as slow, saying Brown's Standing Committee on the Academic Code had not acknowledged evidence he first shared in late May. Serrano later wrote in an op-ed for The Free Press that he does not believe the university would have acted at all had his account not first been published by El Pais in late June and then picked up by Inside Higher Ed. Brown disputes that framing. In a statement reported by Fox News Digital on July 13, the university said its academic leaders had been in contact with Serrano as early as May, that he provided the documentation the Standing Committee needed on July 8, and that the committee is now moving the case forward under its normal procedures.

Whichever account of the timeline is more complete, the underlying pattern holds: resolving this case required a professor to independently investigate 86 exam responses, go public across three separate news outlets, and press the matter for roughly two months before a formal review process began in earnest.

Why this is a detection problem, not a discipline problem

It is worth separating two different failures here, because they call for different fixes.

The first failure was upstream. There was no oversight mechanism in place during the exam itself. A take-home format with unlimited time and no monitoring gives a student every opportunity to use an AI tool, and gives the institution no record of how the answer was actually produced. The professor's suspicion, however well founded, arrived only after the fact, based on score patterns and stylistic analysis he did personally.

The second failure is what happens next. Brown's own newly published committee report on generative AI in teaching and learning found that three-quarters of surveyed faculty are concerned about AI-enabled cheating, a figure that lines up with a 2025 national faculty survey from AAC&U and Elon University, which found that the large majority of faculty nationwide are worried about AI's effect on academic integrity and student learning. The Brown report recommends that the university avoid over-reliance on detection tools with known false-positive and false-negative rates, and that it move institutional codes toward addressing the specific mechanics of generative AI misuse rather than relying on generic academic dishonesty language.

Both of these are structural gaps. Neither is solved by asking one professor to build 86 individual cases from memory and suspicion after the semester has ended.

What a human-reviewed process would have looked like

This is where the distinction between automated and human-backed oversight actually matters, and it is worth being precise about it rather than making a sweeping claim.

An AI detection tool run after the fact, as the professor described doing informally with ChatGPT, can surface a pattern. It cannot make a defensible determination. Independent research on AI-detection accuracy backs this up: one analysis of 14 detection tools found false-positive rates as high as 50 percent and false-negative rates as high as 100 percent depending on the tool, with accuracy dropping further once AI-generated text was lightly edited or paraphrased. A tool like this has no way to distinguish a genuinely unusual but honest answer from an AI-assisted one, and it cannot document its reasoning in a way that holds up if a student challenges the finding, which is exactly the dispute now unfolding at Brown.

A proctored, human-reviewed exam changes the sequence entirely. Instead of a professor discovering an anomaly in aggregate score data weeks later, a trained reviewer looks at the flagged session at the time it happens, with the actual exam conditions in view, not just the output. That review becomes a documented record: what was flagged, who looked at it, and why a decision was made. When a result is challenged, whether by one student or by dozens at once, the institution has something concrete to point to instead of reconstructing intent from a grade curve.

This does not mean every exam needs to become high-stakes and adversarial. Brown's own committee is right that de-emphasizing punishment and building AI-aware academic codes matters too. But policy language only works if there is a way to apply it consistently and fairly at the point of assessment, not just after a problem has already reached this scale.

The scaling problem administrators are underestimating

The academic integrity director quoted in the article makes an important point: faculty are not compensated or incentivized to build cheating cases against dozens of students at once, and most institutions do not staff for it. That is a resourcing problem as much as a policy one. Tricia Bertram Gallant, who directs the Academic Integrity Office and Triton Testing Center at the University of California San Diego, made this point directly in the original reporting.

It is also precisely the moment where AI-assisted cheating changes the math. A single suspicious paper is manageable for a professor to investigate. Eighty-six unusually strong exam answers, submitted in an unmonitored take-home format, is not something any single instructor can reasonably adjudicate alone, especially without institutional support. Programs that rely entirely on faculty judgment after the fact, with no monitoring layer during the assessment itself, are the ones most exposed as AI tools become more capable and harder to detect through scoring patterns alone.

The takeaway for programs issuing results that need to hold up

Every program that issues a grade, a certificate, or a credential is implicitly telling the people who rely on that result that it means something. When an assessment has no oversight during the exam and no documented review process afterward, that claim becomes hard to defend the moment it is questioned, which is exactly what is playing out at Brown right now.

The fix is not more automation layered on top of automation. It is a human reviewer in the loop before a result is finalized, producing a record that can actually be defended. That is a different design decision than choosing a take-home format for convenience, and it is one institutions can make before their own version of this story runs in the news.

{{post-cta}}

In the era of remote learning and online credentialing, online exam proctoring must ensure test integrity, but it should also respect the people taking those exams. Too often, proctoring solutions swing too far toward surveillance, turning what should be a fair, secure process into an uncomfortable experience that feels invasive.

At Integrity Advocate, we believe there’s a better way. Our privacy-first proctoring approach is designed to protect integrity without intrusion, ensuring assessments remain credible, compliant, and human-centered.

Privacy by Design: From the Ground Up

Privacy isn’t an afterthought; it’s baked into every layer of our technology.

Integrity Advocate operates on a data-minimization model: we collect only what’s necessary to confirm identity and verify exam integrity, nothing more.

Unlike many proctoring platforms, we don’t store recordings by default, and we never use test-taker data to train AI models or for analytics beyond the scope of an assessment.

Our system is compliant with global privacy frameworks, including GDPR, PIPEDA, and FERPA, giving institutions and exam takers confidence that their data is handled ethically and securely.

No Downloads, No Device Control

Traditional proctoring tools often require software installs that grant deep access to personal computers, screen control, keystroke tracking, among other invasive practices.

Integrity Advocate takes a completely different approach. Our solution runs entirely in the browser, no downloads, no extensions, and no hidden permissions.

This means:

• No access to personal files or background apps
• No system takeovers or “remote eyes” on your device
• No need for test takers to perform awkward scans

It’s a lightweight, seamless setup that works on any modern device while preserving privacy and accessibility.

Human + AI Oversight: Fair, Not Fearful

AI is powerful, but context matters. That’s why Integrity Advocate uses a hybrid proctoring model, AI handles the heavy lifting of detecting potential issues (like multiple faces or device switching), while trained human reviewers provide the judgment and nuance that algorithms can’t.

We don’t use live proctors who “pop in” on test takers mid-exam. Instead, our reviewers assess potential flags after the session, ensuring normal, non-cheating behavior isn’t misread as a violation.

This hybrid model ensures accuracy without anxiety, maintaining exam integrity while respecting test-taker dignity.

Transparent, Defensible Results

Instead of long video recordings, administrators receive concise, context-rich summaries of any flagged activity. Each flag includes time stamps, screenshots, and reviewer note, giving decision-makers the information they need to take confident, defensible action.

This approach protects everyone involved, reducing false positives, simplifying audits, and maintaining transparency without compromising privacy.

No “Big Brother” Surveillance

Pop-in monitoring. Forced webcam scans. Mandatory software installs. These are hallmarks of the old way of proctoring, one that prioritizes control over trust.

Integrity Advocate rejects that approach. We believe secure testing environments don’t have to feel like surveillance. By combining smart automation, human oversight, and privacy-by-design principles, we deliver integrity without intrusion; ensuring a calm, fair, and respectful testing experience for every exam taker.

The Future of Testing Is Human

As remote and hybrid testing continue to expand, institutions face a choice: maintain integrity through invasive monitoring, or adopt technology that balances security with humanity. At Integrity Advocate, we’ve made our choice clear, privacy isn’t a compromise, it’s a commitment.

Because integrity means more than preventing cheating. It means respecting the people behind every test.

Interested in learning how Integrity Advocate can help your organization maintain exam integrity, without compromising privacy?

Schedule a Demo

{{post-cta}}

Date
Originally aired: June 12, 2025

A recap of the recent webinar demonstrating how Integrity Advocate integrates effortlessly with uxpertise to support secure, online assessments—no installs required.

The online proctoring landscape continues to evolve as Canadian institutions seek solutions that balance security with user experience. With the global online exam proctoring market valued at USD 836.43 million in 2023 and projected to reach USD 1.99 billion by 2029, institutions increasingly prioritize security and accessibility. In a recent webinar, uxpertise and Integrity Advocate demonstrated how their partnership addresses remote exam security challenges through seamless LMS integration and no-install proctoring technology.

The No-Install Advantage in a Growing Market

Eliminating Technical Barriers

Traditional proctoring solutions often create significant obstacles for students and IT departments through complex software installations and compatibility issues. Integrity Advocate's browser-based approach addresses these challenges by operating entirely within web browsers, eliminating the need for additional software downloads or specialized equipment.

"We've proctored over 10 million sessions," noted the Integrity Advocate CEO Graeme Buchan during the webinar demonstration. This substantial volume reflects the reliability and scalability that educational institutions require when transitioning to remote assessment models.

The solution works seamlessly across multiple device types and this universal compatibility ensures equitable access for students regardless of their technology choices, addressing a critical concern as educational institutions report that 44.7% of students admit to cheating in online exams, making robust exam proctoring software essential for maintaining academic integrity.

Advanced Monitoring Without Installation

The demonstration revealed Integrity Advocate’s sophisticated monitoring capabilities that operate entirely within the browser environment:

• Identity verification using webcam technology for continuous authentication
• Environmental monitoring to detect unauthorized materials or assistance
• Screen-sharing prevention and tab-switching detection
• Audio monitoring for suspicious conversations or background noise

These features provide comprehensive security while maintaining the accessibility advantages of browser-based operation. 

Seamless Integration Meets Bilingual Excellence

Native LMS Integration Capabilities

Integrity Advocate was designed from the ground up to integrate easily with leading LMS platforms like uxpertise—no plugins, no installs, no workarounds. 

Supporting Canada's Bilingual Testing Standards by Design

Integrity Advocate is built to support Canada’s linguistic diversity, making it easy for institutions to deliver secure, inclusive online assessments in both French and English. Within uxpertise, this functionality comes to life with:

• User-friendly French and English interface options
• 24/7 bilingual support for students and administrators
• Proctoring procedures that reflect cultural awareness
• Full alignment with Canadian educational language standards

As the uxpertise team shared during the session, “our bilingual capabilities ensure that language is never a barrier to accessing secure online assessments.” It’s a shared commitment to accessibility—but one that starts with how Integrity Advocate was designed from day one.

Data Privacy and Regulatory Compliance

With Canadian privacy regulations being particularly comprehensive, Integrity Advocate’s online proctoring solution addresses key compliance requirements:

• Data residency options within Canadian servers for sensitive information
• PIPEDA compliance for personal information protection
• Transparent data handling policies with clear retention limits
• Student consent management systems that respect privacy rights

Real-World Success and Performance Excellence

Impressive Performance Metrics

The webinar highlighted several compelling statistics demonstrating the proctoring solution’s effectiveness in real educational environments:

Support Excellence:

• 0.58% support ticket rate - significantly below industry standards
• 24/7 multilingual support with average resolution times under 2 minutes
• Comprehensive documentation and training resources

The Future of Secure Online Assessment

Market Position and Competitive Advantages

With the automated online proctoring market projected to grow at 20.5% CAGR from 2025 to 2033, reaching an estimated USD 4.2 billion by 2033, the uxpertise-Integrity Advocate partnership positions institutions favorably for continued growth in remote assessment capabilities.

The solution differentiates itself in the competitive landscape through:

• No-install simplicity that reduces technical barriers and IT overhead
• Canadian data residency ensures compliance with local privacy regulations
• Comprehensive bilingual support for diverse educational environments
• Transparent pricing models without hidden fees or per-usage charges
• Proven scalability demonstrated through millions of successful proctored sessions

Emerging Trends and Technological Evolution

The partnership demonstrates a commitment to continuous innovation through:

• Technology and human-powered anomaly detection for more accurate identification of suspicious behaviors
• Adaptive assessment technologies that adjust to individual student learning patterns
• Integration capabilities with emerging technologies
• Quarterly feature releases based on user feedback and industry developments

Measuring Long-Term Value and ROI

Leaders should evaluate proctoring solutions based on comprehensive metrics:

• Academic integrity violation rates compared to pre-implementation baselines
• Learner completion and satisfaction rates for proctored assessments
• Faculty adoption and effectiveness measures
• Technical support burden and resolution efficiency
• Total cost of ownership, including implementation, training, and ongoing support

For Canadian institutions looking to enhance remote exam security without sacrificing accessibility, the uxpertise–Integrity Advocate collaboration demonstrates what's possible when two trusted platforms work in sync. With over 10 million sessions successfully proctored and a privacy-first design that supports both French and English users, Integrity Advocate is built for today’s assessment demands. And with North America leading the global online proctoring market, this integration offers not just proven reliability—but future-ready flexibility.

Watch the webinar recording

Pour obtenir de l'aide, veuillez visiter notre centre d'assistance

{{post-cta}}

Credentials that carry real professional consequence. The landscape has shifted and it is not slowing down.

In the video above, we trace how assessment delivery has evolved from in-person exams to global remote testing and why each shift has required a new approach to protecting integrity. Today’s environment requires a modern assessment security strategy designed for AI, scale, and trust.

The Landscape Has Shifted

Assessment did not begin online. It moved there. For decades, integrity relied on physical oversight in classrooms and testing centers. As programs expanded, online exams increased access and flexibility. Then the COVID surge accelerated remote assessment almost overnight. What began as an emergency solution became a long-term operating model for many institutions and credentialing bodies.

As delivery models evolved, security had to evolve as well. The challenge now is that change is happening faster and across more dimensions at once.

The AI Era Has Changed the Risk Equation

Generative AI has fundamentally altered how information is accessed, created, and submitted. Tools powered by artificial intelligence can draft essays, solve complex problems, generate code, and replicate writing styles within seconds.

Wiley’s large-scale academic integrity research found that a growing percentage of students acknowledge using AI tools in academic settings, and many instructors report increased concern about AI-assisted misconduct in online exams. The issue is not theoretical. It is active and expanding.

Traditional remote proctoring models were built to detect visible behaviors such as a second person in the room or suspicious movements. AI-assisted misconduct often leaves fewer visible signals. The risk is increasingly digital rather than physical.

Programs must now account for:

• AI-generated responses submitted during online exams
• Real-time AI assistance on secondary devices
• Screen-to-phone workflows that avoid camera detection
• Rapidly evolving generative AI tools

At the same time, institutions cannot simply increase surveillance. Wiley research also shows that student trust and perceptions of fairness directly influence engagement and compliance. Excessively invasive monitoring can undermine that trust.

Modern assessment security in the AI era requires a layered approach:

• Intelligent detection signals
• Contextual analysis
• Trained human review
• Clear, defensible documentation

AI can identify patterns at scale. Human expertise provides interpretation and fairness. The objective is not to monitor more. It is to respond intelligently to how misconduct has evolved.

Scale and Access Have Redefined Expectations

Programs now serve global audiences across time zones and devices. Certification pathways are expanding, workforce training is accelerating. According to recent industry market analysis, the global online proctoring market is projected to continue growing at a strong compound annual growth rate over the next several years, driven by remote testing demand and enterprise credentialing needs.

As access scales, candidates expect experiences that are simple, device-friendly, and reliable. Programs need solutions that integrate into their LMS platforms, require minimal setup, and support growth without creating operational strain.

Research from Wiley indicates that students are more likely to report positive testing experiences when the process is straightforward and transparent. Complexity and technical barriers reduce confidence in the assessment process.

Modern assessment protection must:

• Work across devices and real-world environments
• Minimize unnecessary technical hurdles
• Integrate directly with LMS systems
• Scale without increasing manual administrative work

Ease of use is no longer a convenience. It is directly tied to program adoption, student trust, and operational sustainability.

Security must scale as confidently as the programs it protects.

Privacy and Trust Are Non-Negotiable

As digital assessment expands, privacy expectations intensify.

Wiley research highlights that students care deeply about how their data is collected, stored, and used. Concerns around surveillance and data retention influence perceptions of fairness and institutional trust.

At the same time, regulatory frameworks around data protection continue to evolve globally. Institutions must balance integrity with compliance and reputational risk. Security that compromises privacy ultimately weakens credibility.

Programs increasingly seek approaches that:

• Minimize unnecessary data collection
• Avoid excessive long-term storage of exam data
• Provide contextual human review rather than automated punishment
• Deliver defensible and transparent outcomes

Trust is part of assessment integrity. A secure system must protect both the exam and the relationship between the organization and the candidate. Integrity and privacy must coexist.

Credentials Carry Long-Term Consequences

Assessments are no longer isolated academic exercises. They connect directly to employment decisions, professional licensure, workforce mobility, and digital credential verification. Industry market analysis shows that employers increasingly rely on verified credentials as part of hiring and advancement decisions.

When exam integrity is compromised, the value of the credential is compromised. When credentials lose credibility, the entire ecosystem is affected.

Programs are therefore focusing not only on detection but on defensibility:

• Clear audit trails
• Consistent enforcement standards
• Transparent review processes
• Long-term protection of credential credibility

Assessment security is about preserving trust in outcomes, not simply preventing violations during a single session.

Why a Tool Is No Longer Enough

In this environment, selecting a proctoring solution becomes a strategic decision. Organizations need more than software that flags behavior. They need a partner that:

• Understands AI-era risks
• Invests in research and thought leadership
• Balances intelligent detection with human judgment
• Supports scalable growth
• Adapts to evolving regulations and technology

Security is no longer a static feature. It is an evolving system. Standing still is the greatest risk.

Built for What Is Next

Integrity Advocate was designed for this reality. We combine AI-powered detection with trained human review to deliver assessment security that adapts to your program’s needs. We prioritize privacy, minimize unnecessary data storage, and support flexible proctoring options that work across devices and environments.

More importantly, we treat assessment integrity as an ongoing partnership. Three things are certain:

The landscape will continue to change.
Technology will continue to advance.
New risks will continue to emerge.

The organizations that succeed will be those who choose strategies and partners built to evolve alongside them. Is your strategy is built for what is next?

{{post-cta}}