For a single school, most established products are close enough that the decision turns on support and implementation. The differences become structural at multiple campuses, where the question is whether definitions are held centrally — because that is what determines if a roll-up across campuses is comparable or merely added together.
Multi-campus groups usually discover the real requirement after buying. Each campus was configured separately, each defined "fee collected" slightly differently, and the trust-level total turns out to be adding up four things that are not the same thing.
The right-hand column below is what to ask them, not what we claim about them. We publish SchoolDeck and do not track other vendors’ current feature sets; anything material should be verified with the vendor directly.
For one campus, decide on implementation and support. For three or more, test the group model specifically: whether fee recognition rules are defined at the trust, whether a campus can silently diverge, and whether one campus can see another’s ledger. Those three answers decide whether the roll-up means anything.
| What you are comparing | TurtleDock | Edunext |
|---|---|---|
| Where definitions live | At the trust — campuses set values, not meanings | Ask whether a campus can redefine when a fee counts as collected |
| Isolation between campuses | Enforced by permission, per field, per branch | Ask to log in as a campus user and try to reach another campus |
| Roll-up comparability | Comparable because the definitions are shared | Ask how two campuses at 82% and 91% are known to be measuring the same thing |
| Different boards across campuses | Board sits on the enrolment; campuses can differ | Ask whether one campus can run CBSE and another a state board |
| Identity across the group | SAML per branch organisational unit | Ask how staff moving between campuses are handled |
| Cross-campus access logging | Trust-level access recorded in the audit log | Ask whether head-office access to a campus ledger is logged |
This is the structural decision that separates a group installation that works from four installations that share a logo.
The trust owns what a thing means — fee heads and their recognition rules, grading schemes, the calendar, what a role can see. The campus owns what it currently is: its amounts, its collections, its results. A campus can set a different fee amount; it cannot decide that a cheque counts as collected on deposit when every other campus counts it on clearance.
Ask for these live, with two campuses configured. Of us as well.
Phrased the way they arrive, answered so each one stands on its own.
Yes. The board is a property of the enrolment rather than of the school, so campuses can differ while still sharing trust-level definitions for the things that are genuinely common, such as fee recognition.
Four to six weeks against two to three for a single school. Nearly all of the extra time is definition work at the trust — agreeing what the shared terms mean — rather than technical configuration.
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.