Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Inquisiq R4 vs Moodle comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Inquisiq R4
Ranking in Learning Management Systems (LMS)
25th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Moodle
Ranking in Learning Management Systems (LMS)
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Learning Management Systems (LMS) category, the mindshare of Inquisiq R4 is 0.8%, down from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Moodle is 15.5%, down from 16.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Learning Management Systems (LMS)
 

Featured Reviews

Use Inquisiq R4?
Share your opinion
James Phelps - PeerSpot reviewer
Inexpensive and pretty easy to use, but not easily adaptable for an individual
It does have some problems that are hard to work around, but they can be worked around once you figure out how to make it function or how to work with specific components. The ability to input modified, individual, independent grades in a grade center component is not just hard. It almost always requires you to get tech involved. When you're dealing with a learning system where you have people in an open enrollment with all different levels of learning modes or methodologies, and as well as a worldwide student body, you end up with situations where you have to absolutely exempt somebody from a grade or an assignment and enter a new, different kind of assignment because of their skillset or lack thereof. You can't do that in Moodle. It is virtually impossible to do that in Moodle without having a tech do it for you, and when you have to have that level of tech support, it becomes problematic. They need to fix the grade book center. It is the part where you do evaluations. They need to fix it so that the individual professors can make changes directly without having to get a hold of tech support to do it for them.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Learning Management Systems (LMS) solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Educational Organization
15%
Comms Service Provider
13%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Moodle?
The customization features of Moodle significantly enhance the learning experience for our users.
What needs improvement with Moodle?
The customization of the interface could be improved. Although we can load and change themes, it still always looks like Moodle. We have not found a way to significantly alter its appearance.
What is your primary use case for Moodle?
We use Moodle to manage our students' information, the classes, and the course catalog, which are mainly related to education. It serves as a learning management system for teaching in class.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

BoatU.S., Generac Power Systems, Nationwide Insurance, USA Volleyball, The George Washington University, Florida League of Cities Inc.
Acacia University, Alliant International University, American University of Health Sciences, Anaheim University Online, Aspen University, Cal State University San Bernardino, California State University Los Angeles, Chattanooga Fire Training, City of Humble Fire Department, George Washington University, Georgia Institute of Emergency Medical Services, Michigan Online Classroom, Virginia Beach Sheriffs Office, Washington Post
Find out what your peers are saying about CYPHER LEARNING, Moodle, Google and others in Learning Management Systems (LMS). Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.