Architecture comparison
ScreenComply vs Proctorio
Proctorio is a browser-extension proctoring product: it monitors the assessment tab, the webcam, and browser behaviour inside Chrome, integrated with the LMS. ScreenComply operates one layer lower, on the operating system, where desktop AI assistants, answer overlays, remote-control sessions, and secondary displays live. They answer different questions, and most institutions that adopt ScreenComply run it alongside their existing browser-based proctoring rather than replacing it.
What Proctorio is built to see
Proctorio runs as a browser extension tied to the LMS, which makes it lightweight to deploy at scale and straightforward for students to launch. Within the browser it does its job well.
- Assessment tab activity, navigation, and page-level restrictions.
- Webcam, microphone, and room-scan capture where the institution enables it.
- Identity verification steps before the exam begins.
- LMS-integrated setup and instructor-facing review of recorded sessions.
Where the browser boundary ends
An extension can only observe what the browser exposes to it. A native desktop application that draws over the exam, is excluded from screen capture, and never touches the assessment tab produces no signal an extension can read.
This is an architectural property, not a configuration mistake, and it applies to every browser-based proctoring product including Proctorio.
- Desktop AI assistants and answer overlays running outside the browser.
- Remote-control tools driving the machine from elsewhere.
- Virtual machines hosting the exam with helpers outside the guest.
- Injected or synthesized keyboard input.
- A second device or display used off camera.
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 | Proctorio | ScreenComply |
|---|---|---|
| Browser tab and navigation control | Core capability — tab and navigation control inside Chrome. | Not the primary layer — complementary to the browser control already in place. |
| Webcam and room monitoring | Core capability — webcam, microphone, and room scan. | 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; cannot block native applications. | Prevent mode blocks restricted applications during the assessment window. |
| Evidence output | Session recording and behaviour flags for instructor review. | 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 Proctorio alone is enough
Plenty of assessment programs do not need an OS-level layer, and adding one where it is not warranted is a cost without a benefit.
- Low-stakes quizzes and formative assessment where the consequence of assistance is small.
- Programs whose main concern is navigation, notes, and tab switching rather than AI assistance.
- Courses where a lightweight, no-install student experience outweighs deeper detection.
- Institutions already satisfied with their existing evidence standard for integrity cases.
Running both together
The common deployment is Proctorio for browser control and identity across the whole catalogue, with ScreenComply added on high-stakes, credentialing, or programmatically sensitive assessments where AI assistance is the specific risk.
Because ScreenComply observes a different layer, the two do not compete for the same signals. The institution ends up with browser-level and device-level evidence describing the same session.
Where to go next
Frequently asked questions
Does ScreenComply replace Proctorio?
Usually not. It is designed as a complementary device-level layer that runs alongside browser-based proctoring, though some institutions do consolidate over time.
Can Proctorio detect ChatGPT or desktop AI assistants?
A browser extension observes the browser. A desktop assistant or overlay running outside it does not produce a browser-visible signal, which is the gap OS-level detection addresses.
Does ScreenComply require a student install?
The browser-based API requires no installation. Process-level detection, overlay detection, and Prevent mode require the desktop agent, launched for the exam window.
Does running both create duplicate student friction?
Students launch through a single link. The agent runs for the assessment window and closes afterwards; browser proctoring behaves as it already does.
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.