Camu is a broad higher-education platform with strong mobile-first engagement features and a wide module set including learning delivery. CampusHub is narrower, built specifically around credit accounting and examination reconciliation, and holds no course content.
These two get shortlisted together and differ mainly in scope. Camu covers more of the campus; CampusHub covers less of it and goes deeper into the examination and credit machinery.
We publish CampusHub, so the concessions below are stated explicitly rather than left out.
Choose Camu if you want student engagement and learning delivery in the same product as administration, and value breadth across the full campus experience. Choose CampusHub if your problem is that results do not reconcile — internals, externals and moderation resolving to one defensible transcript — and you are content to keep learning content wherever it already lives.
| What you are comparing | TurtleDock | Camu |
|---|---|---|
| Module breadth | Narrower — administration and examinations | Broader, including learning delivery |
| Learning content | None — bring your own LMS | Included |
| Credit accounting | The core model, including NEP entry and exit | Supported |
| Moderation audit trail | Raw marks never overwritten; adjustments attributed | Available, varies by configuration |
| Student engagement | Functional portal, not an engagement product | A stated strength |
| Accreditation reporting | NAAC and NBA tables from live records | Supported |
| Autonomous schemes | Configured per programme, dummy numbering built in | Supported |
If you want one product covering learning delivery, engagement and administration, Camu’s breadth is a genuine advantage and we do not compete on it. Running two systems has a real cost, and a college that would otherwise buy an LMS separately should weigh that honestly.
And if your examinations already reconcile without difficulty, our main advantage is one you do not need.
Phrased the way they arrive, answered so each one stands on its own.
Yes, from standard exports — students, historical results, backlogs and fee data. Modelling your examination scheme correctly is the slow part and must happen before any data lands. Learning content does not migrate, because we do not host it.
Depends on whether the pain is engagement or reconciliation. A university normalising results from many affiliated colleges will get more from a shared scheme; one whose problem is student experience may not.
Checked by the Implementations desk on 1 September 2026. Corrections go in the page, dated, rather than quietly.
Pricing is on the page, in the open, with the counting rule written next to it. Nobody has to book a call to find out what it costs.
See pricingForty minutes with an implementation engineer — your classes, your fee heads, your grading scheme, entered as we go. No slides, no sample school.