The best 7 IB websites
Are you an IB student looking for resources in your academic journey? This page contains the 7 best tools and websites for the IB Diploma, with thorough comparisons between them.
Detailed comparisons
What is each platform?
Brief programmatic summaries for all tracked IB tools in this hub.
What is Marksy?
Marksy is an IB-focused grading and feedback platform built for rubric-first draft iteration across IA, EE, TOK, oral, and past-paper practice workflows.
What is RevisionDojo?
RevisionDojo is an IB revision platform centered on question practice, exam prep resources, and study workflows for students preparing for IB assessments.
What is Clastify?
Clastify is an IB coursework support platform known for exemplar libraries and paid examiner-style review services for IA, EE, and TOK submissions.
What is Revision Village?
Revision Village is an IB exam-prep platform focused on questionbanks, worked solutions, and past-paper style practice content for core IB subjects.
What is Save My Exams?
Save My Exams is a revision-content platform that provides exam notes, topic questions, and past-paper style study materials across multiple exam boards including IB.
What is Kognity?
Kognity is a school-oriented digital IB learning platform combining textbook content, classroom assignments, and progress analytics for teachers and students.
What is ChatGPT?
ChatGPT is a general-purpose AI assistant used for writing and study support across many domains, including IB tasks when configured with user prompts.
Feature comparison table
One shared feature dataset across all platforms. Marksy is highlighted as the benchmark column.
| Feature | RevisionDojo | Clastify | Revision Village | Save My Exams | Kognity | ChatGPT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| General | |||||||
IB oriented ?IB-first workflows reduce prompt overhead and improve rubric fit. | Strong?Positioned as an IB-specific grading workflow product. | Strong?Strong IB-first positioning across the homepage. | Strong?Strong IB exam/examiner framing in public messaging. | Strong?IB exam prep is the core market positioning. | ~Partial?Supports IB, but also serves multiple exam boards. | Strong?Explicit IB DP product positioning and collaboration claims. | ×No?General assistant, not IB-specific by default. |
Affordable ?Shows what users actually pay, including per-review and billed-total caveats. | Strong?$0 entry with 5 full gradings/month, then paid student plans from $14.99/month. | ×No?Public premium pricing is high at about $198/month for full access, so it is not affordable for most students. | ~Partial?Base access can start around $12.99/month, with per-submission review pricing (TOK $44.99, IA $49.99, EE $59.99). | ×No?Public Gold snapshots include subject plans at $70 monthly and higher full-suite plans. | ~Partial?Offer-led pricing varies by region and promo with multiple monthly and annual anchors. | ×No?No fixed self-serve public sticker price; schools are usually quoted custom annual contracts. | ~Partial?Free tier is available, with paid plans publicly listed around Plus ($20/month) and Pro ($200/month). |
Has free tier ?Students can start immediately without procurement or upfront payment. | Strong?5 complete gradings monthly on free access. | ×No?Has free tier but very limited. | ~Partial?Has free tier but very limited. | ~Partial?Open-study access exists with premium membership upsell. | Strong?Public free-join entry path is available. | ~Partial?Free access trial path exists, but full use is school subscription-led. | Strong?Public free plan exists with paid upgrades for higher limits and models. |
Transparent pricing ?Lower uncertainty at evaluation time. | Strong?Public monthly pricing with free, student, and teacher tiers. | ×No?Prices fluctuate a lot, and is in constant discount despite being advertised as time limited. | Strong?Public review pricing is visible for IA/EE/TOK review offerings. | Strong?Membership and plan framing is publicly visible. | ?Unclear?Pricing clarity is inconsistent across funnels, so transparency remains unclear. | ?Unclear?Pricing is per-student per-year but final costs are quote-based. | Strong?Public plan structure (Free/Plus/Pro/Business/Enterprise) is listed. |
| Assessment grading | |||||||
IA / EE / TOK grading support ?Designed for core IB assessed writing workflows. | Strong?Built for IA, EE, TOK submission workflows. | Strong?IA/EE/TOK grading support is marketed across paid workflows. | Strong?Public review options include IA, EE, and TOK review tracks. | ×No?No dedicated IA/EE/TOK grading support workflow is provided. | ×No?No dedicated IA/EE/TOK grading support workflow is provided. | ×No?No dedicated IA/EE/TOK grading support workflow is provided. | ~Partial?Can support all task types with prompts, not dedicated workflows. |
Criterion level feedback ?Purpose-built for criterion-level grading, not generic advice. | Strong?Criterion-first scoring and rubric-oriented grading UX. | ~Partial?Criterion-level feedback is available but limited to paid tiers. | Strong?Review service provides predicted scores and criterion-linked improvement guidance. | ×No?Positioned around practice content, not draft grading workflows. | ×No?Public value proposition is revision content over coursework grading. | ×No?No criterion-level grading feedback workflow is publicly positioned. | ~Partial?Can grade with prompts, but IB rubric fidelity depends on user setup. |
AI detection ?Integrity checks are native, not a separate purchase. | Strong?20-50 paid-tier AI checks monthly. | Strong?AI-detection checks are included in the paid grading stack. | ×No?No built-in AI-detection workflow is offered. | ×No?No public built-in AI-detection feature positioning. | ×No?No public AI-detection product positioning. | ×No?No public AI-detection workflow positioning. | ×No?No first-party academic AI-detection checker in ChatGPT product flows. |
Specific tips ?Actionable next steps speed up draft improvement cycles. | Strong?Actionable criterion-level tips are paired with Marksy TODO tasks so feedback turns into trackable next steps. | ×No?No consistently structured specific-tip workflow is advertised. | ×No?No always-on specific-tip workflow beyond one-off review comments. | ×No?No specific grading-tip workflow is offered. | ×No?No structured specific-tip grading workflow is offered. | ×No?No structured specific-tip grading workflow is publicly positioned. | ×No?No built-in specific-tip workflow is provided without manual prompting. |
Quick ?Fast turnaround keeps revision momentum high between submissions. | Strong?Fast AI-assisted turnaround supports repeat submission loops. | Strong?Core paid flows are positioned around fast turnaround for iterative student feedback. | ×No?Human examiner review can take longer than instant AI-first loops. | ×No?Not a fast IA/EE/TOK grading workflow; speed claims focus on exam-practice content instead. | ×No?Not positioned as a quick grading-feedback product. | ×No?Not positioned as a quick grading-feedback product. | Strong?Interactive responses are immediate for most text workflows. |
Human review ?Human review can help edge cases but usually adds time and cost. | ×No?Focuses on AI-assisted grading workflow over human examiner reviews. | ×No?No core human-review grading workflow is offered. | Strong?Core value prop: real examiner review plus exemplars. | ×No?Not positioned as a human examiner review service. | ×No?Not a human-review submission service. | ×No?Not positioned as an examiner-review marketplace. | ×No?Not an examiner review marketplace. |
Good price for assessment grading ?Lower cost per repeated grading cycle matters more than one-off pricing. | Strong?Subscription pricing keeps repeated retries cheaper than per-review models. | ×No?Assessment grading pricing is expensive at premium tiers and not good value. | ×No?Per-submission review pricing can become expensive for frequent weekly draft cycles. | ×No?Pricing is optimized for revision content, not assessment grading services. | ×No?Pricing is built for revision memberships, not assessment grading workflows. | ×No?School-led annual contracts can be heavy for individual grading-focused use. | ×No?Not priced specifically for structured assessment grading workflows. |
| Textbooks and simulations | |||||||
Online textbooks ?Useful for concept refreshers before running assessment feedback loops. | Strong?Includes online textbook-style revision content alongside grading workflows. | Strong?Supports online subject notes and revision resources. | ×No?No online textbook product is offered. | ×No?No online textbook product is offered. | Strong?Revision notes, exam questions, and topic tests are public feature pillars. | Strong?Digital IB textbook and classroom content are core pillars. | ×No?No official IB textbook or revision library bundled by default. |
Hundreds of simulations to learn concepts ?Interactive simulation depth improves understanding before drafting. | Strong?Public simulations hub includes hundreds of IB learning simulations. | ×No?No public simulation library positioned as a core feature. | ×No?No public simulations library is positioned. | ×No?No public simulation library is a core product pillar. | ×No?No public simulations library positioned as a core offer. | ~Partial?Interactive learning resources exist, but a simulations count is not clearly public. | ×No?No built-in simulation library for IB concept learning. |
Available for free ?Free learning content removes friction for everyday revision. | Strong?Core simulation and revision resources are publicly accessible. | ~Partial?Free content exists, but textbook access is limited. | ~Partial?Some resources are accessible with free accounts; detailed reviews are paid. | ~Partial?Some open-study access exists before premium membership upgrades. | ~Partial?Free access exists, with deeper revision access behind paid plans. | ×No?Trial access exists, but full textbook access is subscription-led. | ×No?Study support is chat-based, not free textbook content delivery. |
| Oral practice | |||||||
Practice and get feedback ?Oral practice should include structured scoring feedback. | Strong?Built-in oral practice returns structured feedback per run. | Strong?Oral practice with feedback is supported in paid product workflows. | ×No?Not marketed as an oral/IO practice system. | ×No?Not publicly positioned as an oral-practice feedback product. | ×No?No public oral/IO feedback workflow. | ×No?Not publicly positioned around oral/IO practice loops. | ~Partial?Can simulate oral practice, but no IB-structured oral workflow out of the box. |
Affordable oral practice ?Predictable oral-practice costs matter when students rehearse frequently. | Strong?Oral practice is included in plan limits, not charged per attempt. | ×No?Oral-practice pricing is not affordable given limited structured support. | ×No?No affordable oral-practice workflow is offered due to lack of oral support. | ×No?No affordable oral-practice workflow is offered due to lack of oral support. | ×No?No affordable oral-practice workflow is offered due to lack of oral support. | ×No?No affordable oral-practice workflow is offered due to lack of oral support. | ×No?No affordable oral-practice workflow is offered due to lack of IB-structured oral support. |
| Questionbank | |||||||
Practice IB questions ?Question practice is valuable when linked to criterion-aware feedback. | ~Partial?Question practice is available through past papers only; there is no dedicated standalone questionbank. | Strong?Question practice is a core value proposition. | ×No?No dedicated IB question-practice bank is provided. | Strong?Strong IB questionbank and markscheme/video-solution coverage. | Strong?Publicly positioned around exam questions and topic tests. | Strong?Publicly advertises a 10,000+ question bank and auto-corrected assignments. | ×No?No official IB questionbank library bundled by default. |
| Past papers | |||||||
Past papers available ?Past papers are a core requirement for exam-season practice. | Strong?Past-paper and exam-style practice are built into the product. | ×No?No reliable first-party past-paper library is consistently available. | ×No?Past-paper workflow is not a public core feature. | ×No?No first-party past-paper library is consistently available. | ×No?No first-party past-paper library is consistently available. | ×No?No first-party past-paper library is consistently available. | ×No?No first-party past-paper library is bundled by default. |
Practice past papers questions with AI ?AI-assisted past-paper feedback shortens the time between attempts. | Strong?Past-paper question feedback is AI-assisted with retry loops. | ~Partial?AI grading is mentioned, but dedicated past-paper AI workflow detail is limited. | ×No?No dedicated AI past-paper practice workflow is positioned. | ×No?Past-paper practice is content-led, not AI grading-led. | ×No?Past-paper support is content-driven, not AI practice feedback driven. | ×No?No dedicated AI past-paper practice workflow is publicly positioned. | ~Partial?Possible with manual setup; no dedicated IB past-paper pipeline. |
| Teacher features | |||||||
Grade assessments in large batches ?Batch grading throughput matters for teacher workloads. | Strong?Batch workflows support up to 15 submissions at once. | ?Unclear?Bulk submission specifics are not clearly documented on public pages. | ×No?Public workflow is submission-by-submission review. | ×No?No public bulk submission grading workflow. | ×No?No public bulk grading workflow. | ~Partial?Assignment workflows exist in a school/classroom context. | ×No?Public product is not a batch grading pipeline. |
Export grading results in bulk ?Exportable outputs simplify moderation and record-keeping. | Strong?Feedback outputs can be reused and shared for iteration. | ?Unclear?No clear public bulk export workflow documentation. | ~Partial?Delivers detailed output per submission, but no public bulk export flow. | ×No?No public workflow centered on exportable grading outputs. | ×No?Not positioned as an exportable grading feedback platform. | ~Partial?Classroom assignment and data workflows are available in-platform. | ×No?No structured bulk export of grading results by default. |
Winner pick