Choosing between SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 can be challenging for organizations implementing eLearning solutions. In this blog, we want to help all that, like you, are looking which version of SCORM (1.2 and 2004) is better, why and which would be the main differences.

What is SCORM?

To start, let’s talk a little bit about SCORM. Breaking the word down, the ‘S’ stands for ‘sharable’, which implies that the information can be accessed easily by different people over different platforms. ‘CO’ stands for ‘content object’, that speaks about the presence of different courses and documents within the e-learning platform. Lastly, ‘RM’ is ‘reference model’ that refers to the information that the developers require to ensure that the courses and the systems on which they are run use the same format.

In other words, SCORM is nothing but a set of standards that make the courses and the course-carrier LMS compatible with each other. Your courses in SCORM format can be read from any LMS that is SCORM compliant. If you are reading this blog, I’m guessing is because you already have a SCORM compliant LMS.

Modern LMS platforms like Paradiso LMS exemplify comprehensive SCORM implementation, offering full SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 support alongside advanced tracking capabilities and seamless content integration.

Current Industry Landscape

According to Rustici Software’s 2024 report, SCORM remains the most-used eLearning standard, with millions of courses being launched every month. SCORM uploads jumped by 46% in 2021, and learner registrations grew by 31%. This growth shows that despite newer standards emerging, SCORM continues to be the backbone of eLearning delivery.

SCORM 1.2 or SCORM 2004 – Which Makes More Sense for You?

Regardless of the buzz around the TinCan API, SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 still enjoy better support as a way of ensuring standardized communication between online courses and their corresponding learning management system. SCORM 1.2 is in all likelihood the most commonly used specification in the industry. The biggest advantage of SCORM 1.2 is that uploading content to the LMS is as easy as uploading a ZIP file. Unfortunately, SCORM 1.2 lacks many of the features of the more modern specifications, like SCORM 2004.

So which to choose? In this blog, we are going to compare SCORM 1.2 vs SCORM 2004 to give you some tools before choosing one of them. Also, check out a previous blog post if you want to know more info about SCORM.

While not as widely used as SCORM 1.2, SCORM 2004 2nd edition is known for its sequencing and navigation improvements. Content vendors now have the ability to prevent access to certain course elements based on earlier results.

Still, the question remains: is there really an advantage in using the ‘newer’ SCORM 2004 over SCORM 1.2?

Technical Specifications at a Glance

Key Differences: New SCORM vs Old SCORM

There are three main changes in SCORM 2004:

SCORM Status Separation

SCORM 1.2 has one value to hold the status of the lesson – ‘lesson_status’ – and this can be passed, failed, completed, incomplete, browsed, or not attempted. This was not ideal as instructors wanted to know, for example, if the learner had gotten through the entire lesson (completed) but not passed the quiz (failed). SCORM 2004 addressed those issues by splitting lesson_status into ‘completion_status’ (completed/incomplete) and ‘success_status’ (passed/failed).

This separation is particularly valuable for compliance training and certification programs, where knowing who passed a course versus who simply finished it really matters.

Read-Write Interactions with SCORM

In SCORM 1.2 ‘interaction data’ is write-only, which didn’t make much sense (why ‘write’ something you can’t later ‘read’?). SCORM 2004 specifies interactions as read/write, which is especially helpful not only for reporting, but because your lesson can now query the status of a previous interaction, get the result, and act accordingly (i.e. ‘user answered this question in the last launch, so they don’t get another chance to answer it again’).

Additionally, SCORM 2004 can display both quiz questions and answers in reports, while SCORM 1.2 only shows the answers, making analytics much richer.

SCORM Sequencing

SCORM 2004 attempted to improve the author’s control over the content through the ‘sequencing’ part of the spec, but it’s very complex, and a few LMS and authoring products support it. The sequencing spec itself isn’t even usable defined until the ‘2nd Edition’ of SCORM 2004 and further refined through the 3rd and 4th editions of SCORM 2004. It’s a neat concept but overall few find it usable.

Data Storage Capacity

One of the most practical differences is the suspend data limit. SCORM 1.2’s 4,096-character limit restricts complex courses and detailed tracking, while SCORM 2004’s 64,000-character capacity supports comprehensive, multi-module training programs with extensive pause-and-resume functionality.

Do you find any of these improvements represent a critical need for your requirements? Have a look at Convert PowerPoint courses to SCORM Compliant courses.

Making Your Decision

Many LMS products have supported split-status reporting for a while anyway. If your LMS already allows combined statuses, then you may already have this requirement satisfied.

Overall, there’s a reason most eLearning content is still built for SCORM 1.2 – it works and generally satisfies the tracking requirements many organizations require.

Choose SCORM 1.2 if:

• Your tools don’t fully support SCORM 2004
• You’re building bite-sized or simple courses
• You want broad compatibility and fewer tech hassles
• Your course content fits within the 4,096-character data limit
• You need maximum LMS compatibility

Pick SCORM 2004 if:

• You want sequencing, structured paths, or partial scoring
• Your course is long, and learners need to pause and resume frequently
• Your platform supports 2004, and you’ve got coding resources
• You need detailed analytics separating completion from success
• You’re creating multi-module content packages

Always check compatibility before choosing, especially if mixing tools and LMS platforms.

The Hybrid Approach: SCORM and Modern Standards

Many organizations are now adopting a hybrid approach, utilizing both SCORM and xAPI together. SCORM remains reliable for traditional eLearning courses with basic tracking needs, while xAPI expands tracking capabilities to mobile apps, social learning, and real-world training scenarios. This combination gives you broader compatibility and deeper insights across the full learning experience.

Of course, if your LMS and authoring software supports Tin Can, that may be the way to go. xAPI or Tin Can is in active development, whereas SCORM has pretty much halted, though it will surely enjoy some longevity with a large installed base and cross LMS/tool implementations.

Authoring Tool Considerations

Modern authoring tools like iSpring Suite, Articulate, and Adobe Captivate support both SCORM 1.2 and 2004, but they handle the standards’ quirks differently. The right authoring tool can smooth over rough edges behind the scenes, so you spend less time debugging and more time designing effective learning experiences.

CogniSpark AI stands out by revolutionizing course creation through artificial intelligence. It’s a free eLearning authoring tool that lets you import PPT, PDF, videos, or any document files and convert them into interactive SCORM-compatible courses within minutes. This AI-powered approach reduces the need for deep technical skills and development time while ensuring both SCORM 1.2 and 2004 compatibility, making it comparable to traditional tools but with enhanced automation capabilities.

Conclusion

The 1.2/2004 debate is best answered based on organizational requirements. SCORM 1.2 continues to dominate with 90%+ LMS support and works well for basic tracking needs. SCORM 2004 offers superior features for complex training requiring detailed analytics and advanced interactions.

With SCORM uploads growing 46% year-over-year, both versions will continue serving the industry. Choose based on your specific tracking needs, content complexity, and LMS capabilities.