Architecture comparison
ScreenComply vs Honorlock
Honorlock combines a browser extension with recorded and live pop-in proctoring, including search-and-destroy style checks for leaked exam content. ScreenComply operates at the operating-system level, observing AI assistant processes, answer overlays, remote access, input sources, and secondary displays that a browser extension cannot see. The two address different layers, and running them together gives an institution both human proctoring oversight and device-level evidence.
What Honorlock is built to see
Honorlock's strength is the combination of automated browser monitoring with human proctors who can join a session when something looks wrong, plus its work on leaked exam content circulating online.
- Browser-extension monitoring of the assessment session and webcam.
- Live pop-in proctors who join when automated flags fire.
- Detection of exam content posted to public homework and answer sites.
- LMS integration with on-demand scheduling and no separate appointment.
Where the browser boundary ends
Human oversight helps, but a proctor joining a session sees the webcam feed and the shared browser session. An overlay excluded from screen capture, or a second device off camera, is not visible to that proctor any more than it is to the extension.
This is the same architectural boundary that applies to every browser-based proctoring product, and it is where an OS-level layer contributes something genuinely different.
- AI assistant applications and answer overlays running outside the browser.
- Screen-capture exclusion that hides an overlay from both recording and live view.
- Remote-control sessions and virtual machines.
- Non-local keyboard input and clipboard-driven answer entry.
- Additional displays and off-camera devices.
Layer-by-layer comparison
This compares what each layer is architecturally able to observe. It is not a scorecard: the two products are designed for different parts of the problem.
| Capability | Honorlock | ScreenComply |
|---|---|---|
| Browser tab and navigation control | Core capability — browser-level monitoring and restriction. | Not the primary layer — complementary to the browser control already in place. |
| Webcam and room monitoring | Core capability — recorded proctoring plus live pop-in proctors. | Camera and audio signals where enabled by policy; not the primary detection layer. |
| Desktop AI assistant processes | Outside the browser boundary, so not observed. | Process enumeration against a maintained list of AI assistants and answer tools. |
| Always-on-top and transparent overlays | Not observed; overlays are often excluded from screen capture. | Overlay, transparency, and always-on-top window detection at the OS level. |
| Remote access and virtual machines | Limited or not observed from inside the browser. | Remote-control, virtualization, and capture-driver detection. |
| Secondary displays | Inferred at best, typically from gaze. | Displays enumerated directly from the operating system. |
| Input-source integrity | Not observed. | Verification that keyboard input originates from local physical hardware, plus clipboard and cadence signals. |
| Blocking restricted applications | Restricts browser behaviour and escalates to a human proctor; not OS-level enforcement. | Prevent mode blocks restricted applications during the assessment window. |
| Evidence output | Recorded session review with automated flags and proctor notes. | Timestamped evidence timeline with executive verdict, PDF export, and secure share links. |
Based on publicly available product information. Capabilities change; verify current functionality with each vendor.
When Honorlock alone is enough
Honorlock covers a broad set of integrity concerns well, and for many programs it is the appropriate single control.
- Programs whose primary concern is leaked exam content and answer-site circulation.
- Assessments where live human oversight is the deterrent the institution wants.
- Lower-stakes assessments where a no-install student experience is the priority.
- Courses where AI assistance is not a material part of the threat model.
Running both together
Honorlock provides browser monitoring and human escalation; ScreenComply supplies the device-level signals and the timestamped evidence timeline that supports an academic-integrity decision afterwards.
Institutions typically apply the combined stack to high-stakes and credentialing assessments, leaving routine coursework on the browser layer alone.
Where to go next
Frequently asked questions
Does ScreenComply provide live human proctors?
No. ScreenComply is automated device-level detection and reporting. Institutions that want live human oversight can keep the proctoring service they already use alongside it.
Can Honorlock detect AI assistants running on the desktop?
Browser-based monitoring, including live proctor view, does not see native overlays excluded from screen capture or applications running outside the browser.
Can we use ScreenComply only for certain exams?
Yes. It is configured per assessment, so an institution can apply it to high-stakes exams only and leave routine coursework unchanged.
What does the student experience look like?
A single launch link. The agent runs for the assessment window and closes when the session ends.
What is ScreenComply's compliance posture?
A SOC 2 Type 2 examination is in progress, and ScreenComply is under contract with the State of Montana. No other certification claims are made.
ScreenComply is under contract with the State of Montana. SOC 2 Type 2 examination in progress.
See the device-level layer for yourself
A short walkthrough of live detection, Detect versus Prevent mode, and the integrity report your reviewers would actually receive.