Schools looking at Entab alternatives are usually long-standing users with years of history in the system, so the deciding factor is rarely features — it is whether the history comes out cleanly and what happens to report cards issued under older schemes. SchoolDeck is one option; this page covers how to evaluate any of them.
We publish SchoolDeck, so treat our own entry accordingly. Verify any current claim about another vendor with that vendor directly — products change and we do not track theirs.
Entab is one of the longer-established school software companies in India, and its CampusCare product is widely deployed, particularly in convent and CBSE schools. That longevity is the single most important fact when evaluating a replacement, and it cuts both ways.
A school on it for eight years has eight years of admissions, fees and results inside it. The evaluation is therefore not "which product has more features" — it is "what happens to eight years of history", which most comparison pages never mention.
Apply this to every vendor you shortlist, including us. The answers separate products faster than any feature grid.
| Question to ask | Why it matters | A good answer sounds like |
|---|---|---|
| Can I export everything, myself, today? | Export behind a support ticket is not export | A button in the admin, structured files, no notice period |
| Does historical data come with its scheme? | A 2019 mark under 2026 rules is a different number | Grading schemes versioned by year and exported with the marks |
| Do old report cards reprint as issued? | Families hold the originals and will compare | Reprints reproduce the format and key of that year |
| Does the fee ledger export with receipt numbers? | Receipt series continuity is an audit matter | Full series including cancellations, with reasons |
| What is the notice period, and what happens after it? | Access ending before migration completes is the real risk | Read-only access for a defined period past termination |
These are the products that come up when a school leaves a long-established system. We publish SchoolDeck and it is listed here on the same terms as the rest — last, and with what it does not do stated.
The middle column is how each vendor describes itself in its own public material, checked on 21 September 2026 — it is their claim, not our assessment of them, and products change. The right-hand column is what to ask them. We do not publish a feature matrix against named competitors because we do not track their products and an invented one would be worth less to you than a question you can put to a salesperson.
| Alternative | How they describe themselves | The question to put to them |
|---|---|---|
| MyClassboard | Cloud school ERP with a broad module set spanning ERP, finance, admissions, HR and an LMS | Which of these modules will still be in use in year two? |
| Fedena | Open-source-derived — Project Fedena is Apache-2.0. Sold two ways: Fedena SaaS on Foradian’s servers, or Fedena CDS on a server you provide, which its support site documents with hardware requirements and client-applied updates | Which of the two are we being quoted, and under CDS who applies the updates? |
| Vidyalaya | Offers a choice of deployment — its own material describes cloud-hosted, hybrid and on-premise | If we take on-premise, what do hosting, backup, patching and an owner cost on top of the licence? |
| Skolaro | Cloud-hosted and AI-assisted, “50+ modules”; claims 1,800+ institutions across India, the UAE and Oman | Which modules would actually be switched on for a school our size? |
| Edunext | Cloud-based school ERP, founded 2012; claims 1,400+ schools globally | Are definitions held centrally, so a roll-up across campuses means anything? |
| SchoolPad | Claims 350+ schools across 16+ states and positions on a dedicated success team, guided onboarding and training rather than on feature count | Who does the configuration, how long does it take, and what happens if it is wrong? |
| Teachmint | Now leads with an “AI-Powered Connected Classroom” device — an interactive flat panel. Teaching delivery first, administration second | When the classroom layer and the register disagree, which one is the record? |
| SchoolDeck (ours) | Hosted only, on Google Cloud in Mumbai with data resident in India. Deliberately narrower: the administrative record, with no teaching layer | Put every question above to us, and ask for the answers in writing |
The volume is not the problem; a decade of records for two thousand students is a small dataset. Three other things are.
If the current system works, staff are trained on it, and the complaint is aesthetic rather than operational, switching is a poor use of a year. Migration has a real cost in staff attention during a term.
The changes that justify a move are structural: the system cannot do something you now need, support has stopped being responsive when results are blocked, or you cannot get your own data out. Those are worth acting on. A dated interface is not.
Phrased the way they arrive, answered so each one stands on its own.
From its exports, yes — students, staff, fee history and historical results import from standard structured files. We ask for the exports and validate them before anything goes live, so problems surface before they matter.
A year boundary, ideally with fees switching at the following month boundary so the books close cleanly. Mid-year moves are possible but opening balances become a reconstruction rather than a figure.
The complete fee ledger with receipt numbers, and report cards as PDFs exactly as issued. Those two are the hardest things to reconstruct later and the ones auditors and families actually ask for.
Checked by the Implementations desk on 7 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.