Koji vs FeedbackFruits for Course Evaluation (2026): A Fair Comparison
FeedbackFruits is a strong LMS-embedded suite for peer assessment and formative engagement — but it is not a dedicated course-evaluation tool. Here is an honest, side-by-side comparison to help European universities choose the right tool for student evaluation of teaching.
Koji Editorial Team
Course Evaluation Research ·
Short answer: FeedbackFruits and Koji are often shortlisted together because both are European, GDPR-conscious, and pitched as "modern student feedback." But they solve different problems. FeedbackFruits is a suite of LMS-embedded pedagogical tools — peer review, group-member evaluation, social annotation, interactive content — designed to improve learning inside a course. Koji is a dedicated, AI-moderated platform for evaluating teaching and courses: end-of-module and programme-level student evaluation of teaching (SET), with automatic thematic analysis and accreditation-ready reporting. If you want students to give each other better feedback on group work, FeedbackFruits is purpose-built. If you need to run institution-wide course evaluations and turn the results into quality-assurance evidence, that is Koji's job. This guide lays out the differences fairly so you can decide which problem you are actually solving.
What each tool is built for
FeedbackFruits is an Amsterdam-headquartered edtech company offering a suite of roughly fifteen tools that embed directly into your VLE/LMS (Canvas, Brightspace, Moodle, Blackboard) via the LTI 1.3 standard. The tools cluster into three families: assessment (peer review, self-assessment, group-member evaluation, skill review, automated writing feedback), social annotation (collaborative reading and annotation of documents, video and audio), and engagement (interactive presentations, discussion, team-based learning). Its AI layer, marketed as "pedagogy-driven AI" (Acai), includes a Feedback Coach that nudges students to improve the quality of the peer feedback they write, and a Grading Assistant that drafts feedback suggestions for instructors. It is used by 100+ institutions including the University of Leeds, University of Bath and Imperial College London.
Crucially — and FeedbackFruits is fairly transparent about this — the suite does not include a dedicated end-of-module course/teaching evaluation product. Its "Group Member Evaluation" and peer-review tools let students rate each other's contributions using Likert scales, rubrics and qualitative comments, but that is peer assessment of coursework, not anonymous student evaluation of the teacher and the module. If your institution's quality office needs a closing-the-loop SET instrument, FeedbackFruits is adjacent to that need rather than aimed at it.
Koji is a dedicated course-evaluation platform built around an AI interview engine. Instead of a static Likert questionnaire, each student has a short, anonymous, conversational evaluation: the AI moderator asks the standardized questions your QA office defines, then probes follow-ups ("you mentioned the labs felt rushed — what specifically would have helped?") in a bias-aware, consistent way. Open-text and conversational responses are then analysed automatically into themes, sentiment and recommended actions, and packaged into longitudinal, cohort-level reports that map onto quality frameworks like the ESG / ENQA standards. The same AI interview engine also powers the main Koji platform at koji.so for general customer and user research — course evaluation is the higher-education-specific application of that engine.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Koji | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Dedicated student evaluation of teaching (course & programme level) | LMS-embedded pedagogical tools: peer assessment, group-member evaluation, engagement |
| Core method | AI-moderated conversational interviews with adaptive follow-ups | Likert/rubric/qualitative peer & self-assessment activities inside a course |
| Qualitative analysis | Automatic thematic analysis, sentiment, recommended actions | Analytics on peer feedback; outlier/flagging within activities |
| Standardisation & bias | Bias-aware, standardized AI moderation across all classes | Designed for varied formative activities, not standardized SET |
| Closing the loop | Action tracking and "you said, we did" reporting built in | Not its focus; closing-the-loop sits outside the suite |
| Accreditation reporting | Longitudinal, cohort-level evidence mapped to ESG/NVAO/QA frameworks | Not designed as accreditation evidence for teaching quality |
| Deployment | Standalone evaluation platform; links/embeds; integrates with SIS | Embedded in the LMS via LTI 1.3; single sign-on, no separate login |
| AI features | Conversational moderation + automated analysis of responses | "Acai" feedback coach for students; grading assistant for staff |
| Data & GDPR | EU/GDPR-focused data handling for evaluation data | GDPR + WCAG 2.1 AA; data hosted on Microsoft Azure in your region; 1EdTech certified |
| Pricing | Subscription; request a quote | As of publication, public pricing was not available; quote-based |
Competitor facts above are drawn from FeedbackFruits' public materials and third-party listings as of publication. Where pricing is not public we say so rather than estimate.
Where the two genuinely overlap — and where they don't
The honest overlap is narrow but real: both can collect structured and free-text input from students, both are GDPR-conscious, and both use AI to raise the quality of feedback. A department that has FeedbackFruits for peer review might reasonably ask, "do we also need Koji?" The answer depends on the question you are trying to answer.
- Formative, in-course, peer-to-peer learning → FeedbackFruits. Its group-member evaluation prevents free-riding, its social annotation deepens reading, and its AI coach measurably improves the feedback students give each other. This is genuinely best-in-class for that job, and Koji does not try to replace it.
- Summative and formative evaluation of the teaching and the course, at scale, as QA evidence → Koji. Anonymous student evaluation of teaching, standardized across hundreds of modules, with automatic thematic analysis and accreditation-ready longitudinal reporting, is what Koji is built for and what the FeedbackFruits suite does not target.
Put plainly: FeedbackFruits improves what happens within a course; Koji measures and documents how well the course was taught. Many institutions will run both, for different reasons.
When FeedbackFruits is the better choice
We would rather you buy the right tool than the wrong one. Choose FeedbackFruits over Koji if:
- Your priority is peer assessment, group-work fairness, or social annotation embedded directly in Canvas/Brightspace/Moodle, with no separate login for students.
- You want an AI coach that teaches students to write better feedback as a learning outcome in itself.
- You are buying a pedagogical engagement suite for teaching staff, not a quality-assurance evaluation instrument for your QA/IR office.
- Tight LTI integration and a single in-LMS experience matter more than dedicated SET reporting and accreditation evidence.
If, on the other hand, your driver is response rates on end-of-semester evaluations, escaping the "average Likert score" trap, analysing thousands of open-text comments reliably, demonstrating closing-the-loop for accreditors, or comparing cohorts over time, that is the territory where Koji is purpose-built — and where a peer-assessment suite, however good, is the wrong instrument.
How Koji addresses the classic SET weaknesses
Traditional course evaluations — and the Likert items inside any general tool — suffer from well-documented problems: students satisfice and straight-line down the middle, open comments go unread at scale, and a single static survey can't probe why a rating is low. Koji's AI moderator asks adaptive follow-ups to turn a vague "the pacing was off" into something actionable, applies the same standardized, bias-aware moderation to every class so comparisons are fairer, and then does the thematic analysis automatically so a programme director reads themes and recommended actions rather than 400 raw comments. Because the moderation is consistent and the reporting is longitudinal, the output stands up as quality-assurance evidence — see our guides on AI course evaluation vs traditional SET surveys and the best course evaluation software for European universities.
What to put on a procurement shortlist
Because these tools occupy adjacent categories, the cleanest way to avoid buying the wrong one is to write the requirement down before you demo anything. For a course-evaluation purchase, score vendors on: standardized core questions applied across every module; response rates achievable on end-of-semester evaluations; depth and reliability of open-text analysis at scale; longitudinal cohort-over-cohort reporting; documented closing-the-loop/action tracking; mapping to your accreditation framework (ESG/NVAO/AACSB/EQUIS/AMBA); and EU/GDPR data handling with a current Data Processing Agreement. For a pedagogical-engagement purchase, score on: native LTI 1.3 integration, breadth of peer/self/group assessment activities, quality of in-activity AI coaching, and instructor workload reduction. FeedbackFruits will win the second scorecard comfortably; Koji is built to win the first. Running both demos against the same explicit requirements — rather than a generic "modern feedback" brief — usually makes the decision obvious within an afternoon, and prevents the common mistake of asking a peer-assessment suite to serve as your institution-wide SET system or vice versa.
The bottom line
FeedbackFruits and Koji are not really competitors so much as neighbours. FeedbackFruits is an excellent, GDPR-compliant suite for formative, in-course, peer and self-assessment embedded in your LMS. Koji is a dedicated, AI-native platform for evaluating teaching and courses and turning that into closing-the-loop, accreditation-ready evidence. If you are choosing a student-evaluation-of-teaching system for your institution, FeedbackFruits is unlikely to be the right tool — and if you are choosing a peer-assessment engagement suite, Koji is not trying to be that. Match the tool to the question.
Want to see how AI-moderated course evaluation compares to your current survey? Book a Koji walkthrough and we'll run a sample evaluation on one of your modules.