Learning Management Systems: AI Market Discovery Index
Tracking how AI platforms recommend learning management systems. This public AI Market Discovery Index is updated monthly since July 2026.

On this page
- 01Benchmark Summary
- 02Current Benchmark at a Glance
- 03Research Scope and Qualification
- 04Current Brand Standings
- 05How to Read the Standings
- 06Recommendation Coverage Movement
- 07Largest Decline: Blackboard (Anthology)
- 08Significant Decliners: Canvas (Instructure) and Moodle
- 09Category Leader: TalentLMS
- 10Recommendation Placement Snapshot
- 11Buyer-Intent Distribution
- 12Historical Measurement Record
Benchmark Summary
TalentLMS leads the Learning Management Systems category with 39.7% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, ahead of Docebo at 38.1%, a 1.6-point gap. This month's move was significant for nearly every tracked brand: coverage rebounded sharply from August's compressed levels, with TalentLMS climbing 32.3 points (from 7.4% to 39.7%) and Docebo climbing 30.7 points (from 7.4% to 38.1%) — reversing August's dip rather than extending a longer decline.
Measured against the July 2026 baseline, no brand recorded a significant increase in valid recommendation coverage. Blackboard (Anthology) recorded the largest baseline decline, falling 11.8 points from 17.8% to 6.0%, and is one of three brands — along with Canvas (Instructure), down 8.5 points, and Moodle, down 10.2 points — classified as significant decliners against the July baseline. All three of those significant decliners nonetheless moved up from August 2026's compressed readings. The remaining seven brands, including leader TalentLMS, are classified stable relative to baseline despite each sitting below its July starting level.
AI recommendation trend
valid recommendation coverage, Jul 2026 to Sep 2026
- TalentLMS39.7%
- Docebo38.1%
- Moodle29.6%
- Absorb LMS26.7%
- Canvas (Instructure)26.2%
- 360Learning24.3%
- Cornerstone OnDemand9.7%
- SAP Litmos9.4%
- Blackboard (Anthology)6.0%
- D2L Brightspace5.1%
Current Benchmark at a Glance
Measure | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 | Movement |
|---|---|---|---|
Qualified benchmark observations | 467 | 585 | Up 118 |
Tracked brands | 10 | 10 | No change |
Qualified surface breadth | 6 | 6 | No change |
Recommendation-shaped answer share | 34.5% | 30.1% | Down 4.4 points |
Valid recommendation shortlist share | 48.0% | 41.4% | Down 6.6 points |
Leader by valid recommendation coverage | TalentLMS | TalentLMS | No change |
Qualified surface breadth counts the number of canonical AI surface families with at least one qualified observation: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, AI Overviews, and AI Mode. August 2026 recorded a compressed 6.3% recommendation-shaped answer share and 8.5% valid recommendation shortlist share before the September 2026 recovery.
For the strategic interpretation of this benchmark, read CiteWorks Studio's analysis of How AI Search Is Recommending Learning Management Systems
Research Scope and Qualification
The public benchmark is narrower than the raw collection universe by design. The following table shows how observations moved through the research stages.
Research stage | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 | What it represents |
|---|---|---|---|
Source prompt-surface observations | 800 | 800 | Total prompts collected across AI surfaces |
Unique questions | 468 | 508 | Distinct questions after deduplication |
Brand / competitor mentions | 800 | 800 | Prompts mentioning at least one tracked brand |
Relevant observations | 569 | 675 | Prompts relevant to the category |
Irrelevant observations | 231 | 125 | Prompts not relevant to the category |
Qualified benchmark observations | 467 | 585 | Public denominator for brand metrics |
Want the full Authority Index
The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.
Brand-level percentages use the qualified observations as the public denominator, not the raw collection. AI Market Discovery Methodology
Current Brand Standings
Brand | Presence rate | Valid recommendation coverage | Top-three rate | Rank-one rate | Net sentiment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TalentLMS | 78.5% | 39.7% | 22.2% | 9.1% | 0.67 |
Docebo | 78.5% | 38.1% | 21.9% | 9.9% | 0.66 |
Moodle | 82.7% | 29.6% | 11.3% | 3.6% | 0.54 |
Absorb LMS | 43.9% | 26.7% | 12.7% | 1.5% | 0.77 |
Canvas (Instructure) | 75.7% | 26.2% | 12.0% | 8.0% | 0.53 |
360Learning | 39.3% | 24.3% | 4.8% | 0.2% | 0.77 |
Cornerstone OnDemand | 28.4% | 9.7% | 2.6% | 0.2% | 0.49 |
SAP Litmos | 24.8% | 9.4% | 1.4% | 0.2% | 0.62 |
Blackboard (Anthology) | 51.1% | 6.0% | 1.2% | 0.0% | 0.20 |
D2L Brightspace | 16.6% | 5.1% | 1.9% | 0.2% | 0.58 |
How to Read the Standings
- Presence rate: share of qualified observations where the brand is mentioned, regardless of recommendation status.
- Valid recommendation coverage: share of qualified observations where the brand appears in a valid recommendation shortlist.
- Top-three rate: share of qualified observations where the brand appears in the first three recommendation positions.
- Rank-one rate: share of qualified observations where the brand is the first recommendation.
- Net sentiment: positive minus negative mention tone, divided by total mentions, ranging from -1 to 1.
For formulas and denominator rules, see AI Market Discovery Metric Definitions.
Recommendation Coverage Movement
Brand | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 | Movement since baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
TalentLMS | 44.8% | 39.7% | Down 5.1 points |
Docebo | 40.9% | 38.1% | Down 2.8 points |
Moodle | 39.8% | 29.6% | Down 10.2 points |
Absorb LMS | 31.3% | 26.7% | Down 4.6 points |
Canvas (Instructure) | 34.7% | 26.2% | Down 8.5 points |
360Learning | 28.7% | 24.3% | Down 4.4 points |
Cornerstone OnDemand | 12.2% | 9.7% | Down 2.5 points |
SAP Litmos | 10.3% | 9.4% | Down 0.9 points |
Blackboard (Anthology) | 17.8% | 6.0% | Down 11.8 points |
D2L Brightspace | 7.9% | 5.1% | Down 2.8 points |
All ten brands rebounded from August 2026 to September 2026, with every brand recording a significant single-month increase. TalentLMS rose 32.3 points from 7.4% in August 2026 to 39.7% in September 2026, Docebo rose 30.7 points from 7.4% to 38.1%, and Moodle rose 23.8 points from 5.8% to 29.6%. That single-month rebound accounts for most of the gap between August's compressed readings and September's standings, but it did not fully offset the baseline declines recorded by the three significant decliners.
Largest Decline: Blackboard (Anthology)
Blackboard (Anthology) fell 11.8 percentage points, from 17.8% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 6.0% in September 2026. This decline moved in step with the brand's top-three rate, which fell from 9.0% to 1.2% over the same period, while presence rate held nearly steady at 51.1% in September 2026, down from 51.2% in July 2026. Presence held steady while recommendation outcomes collapsed, indicating a conversion problem rather than a visibility problem.
Want the full Authority Index
The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.
Significant Decliners: Canvas (Instructure) and Moodle
Canvas (Instructure) fell 8.5 points from 34.7% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 26.2% in September 2026, with top-three rate down 8.8 points from 20.8% to 12.0% and rank-one rate down 8.5 points from 16.5% to 8.0%. Moodle fell 10.2 points from 39.8% to 29.6% over the same period, with top-three rate down 5.6 points from 16.9% to 11.3%. Both brands recorded sharp single-month recoveries from August 2026, with Moodle rising 23.8 points and Canvas (Instructure) rising 21.3 points, though neither recovery was large enough to close the gap to its July baseline.
Category Leader: TalentLMS
TalentLMS holds the lead at 39.7% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026, followed by Docebo at 38.1%, a 1.6-point gap that leaves the top position tightly contested. The leader position was stable this month: TalentLMS also led the July 2026 baseline at 44.8%.
Recommendation Placement Snapshot
Coverage alone does not show how prominently a brand is recommended. Placement rates reveal whether a brand appears early in recommendation shortlists or farther down.
Brand | Sep 2026 top-three rate | Sep 2026 rank-one rate | Jul 2026 top-three rate | Jul 2026 rank-one rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
TalentLMS | 22.2% | 9.1% | 23.5% | 9.0% |
Docebo | 21.9% | 9.9% | 23.1% | 10.7% |
Absorb LMS | 12.7% | 1.5% | 15.6% | 1.5% |
Canvas (Instructure) | 12.0% | 8.0% | 20.8% | 16.5% |
Close coverage can still hide different first-position rates. TalentLMS and Docebo sit within 1.6 points of each other on valid recommendation coverage, yet Docebo's rank-one rate of 9.9% in September 2026 exceeds TalentLMS's 9.1%, inverting the coverage order at the first position.
Buyer-Intent Distribution
In September 2026, all qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation class, where users asked for direct brand suggestions.
Buyer-intent class | Jul 2026 | Sep 2026 |
|---|---|---|
Brand Recommendation | 467 | 585 |
Pricing & Value | 0 | 0 |
Multi-Brand Comparison | 0 | 0 |
Total qualified observations | 467 | 585 |
The current public series measures brand recommendation discovery specifically and does not yet contain qualified observations in the pricing or multi-brand comparison classes.
Historical Measurement Record
This is an evergreen benchmark URL. New measurements are added to the same report.
Measurement | Qualified observations | Coverage leader | Leader coverage | Largest coverage movement |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 2026 | 467 | TalentLMS | 44.8% | TalentLMS down 37.4 points |
Aug 2026 | 447 | Docebo | 7.4% | TalentLMS down 37.4 points |
Sep 2026 | 585 | TalentLMS | 39.7% | TalentLMS up 32.3 points |
Evidence and Source Layer
The benchmark is built from prompt-level observations that retain the query, AI/search surface, answer, brand outcome, recommendation placement, sentiment, and where exposed, citations or attributable evidence sources. Source presence is evidence about the information environment. It is not automatically proof that the source caused the recommendation.
Scope Boundaries
This public benchmark does not measure market share, attributable sales, every possible AI response, organic-search ranking, social mention volume, private or sponsored channels, or causality from a metric movement alone.
About This Benchmark
The LLM Authority Index AI Market Discovery Index tracks how AI assistants surface and recommend brands across major AI and search surfaces. This neutral industry benchmark measures presence, recommendation coverage, placement, and sentiment for tracked brands in each category.
- AI Market Discovery Index
- AI Market Discovery Methodology
- AI Market Discovery Metric Definitions
- AI Market Discovery Research Standards
Get a Company-Level Authority Index
The public industry benchmark shows category-level standings. A company-level Authority Index can go deeper.
Want the full Authority Index
The paid deep-dive adds competitor threat profiles, the gap matrix, citation failure map, platform-by-platform recovery roadmap, and client-specific economic modeling.
Keep reading
Related posts
Industry Reports
Language Learning Software: AI Market Discovery Index
Read this blog on LLM Authority Index.
ReadIndustry Reports
Debt Management: AI Market Discovery Index
A benchmark of how six AI platforms discover, compare, and recommend debt management plans, debt settlement providers, and accreditation bodies across high-intent consumer finance prompts.
ReadIndustry Reports
Revenue Cycle Management: AI Market Discovery Index
Read this blog on LLM Authority Index.
Read