Key Takeaways
- Traditional authoring tools (Articulate, Captivate) excel at creating polished, custom courses but require significant time and expertise
- AI-powered tools excel at rapidly converting existing content into training but offer less customization
- The choice isn't either/or—many organizations use both for different types of training
- Consider who's creating content, how fast you need it, and how much customization matters when choosing
The eLearning authoring market is splitting. On one side: traditional tools like Articulate Storyline, Adobe Captivate, and Lectora—powerful platforms that skilled instructional designers use to create polished, interactive courses. On the other: AI-powered platforms that generate training from existing content in minutes.
Both approaches work. Both have tradeoffs. The right choice depends on your specific situation.
What Traditional Authoring Tools Do Well
Traditional authoring tools have been the standard for corporate eLearning for over two decades. There's a reason they've lasted.
Complete creative control
Every interaction, every animation, every branching path—you design it. Want a specific visual style? You can create it. Need a complex scenario with multiple variables? You can build it. The output is limited only by your skill and time.
Proven workflows
The instructional design process with these tools is well-established. Needs analysis → design document → storyboard → development → review → publish. Teams know how to do this. Resources, templates, and training abound.
Broad LMS compatibility
Export as SCORM, xAPI, or cmi5 and your course works in virtually any LMS. This matters for organizations with existing learning ecosystems they need to maintain.
Traditional tools shine when: You're building flagship courses, compliance training with legal review requirements, or highly interactive experiences where every detail matters.
What Traditional Tools Struggle With
The same features that make traditional tools powerful also create limitations.
Speed
Building a course in Storyline or Captivate takes time. Industry benchmarks from ATD suggest 40-200 hours of development time per hour of finished eLearning, depending on interactivity level. For a 30-minute course, that's potentially weeks of work. This is why the L&D bottleneck exists in most organizations.
Expertise requirements
These tools have learning curves. An instructional designer can be productive in days. A subject matter expert with no eLearning background? Months before they're creating quality content—if ever.
Maintenance burden
When content changes, someone needs to update the course. Open the project file, find the relevant slides, make changes, republish, redistribute. For content that changes frequently, this becomes a significant ongoing cost.
Scalability
If you need to create 100 training modules next month, you need 100 modules worth of designer time. Traditional tools don't scale without proportional headcount increases.
of L&D teams report having a training backlog they can't address with current resources, according to industry surveys. Traditional tools contribute to this bottleneck.
What AI-Powered Tools Do Well
AI authoring tools take a fundamentally different approach: start with existing content, let AI do the transformation.
Speed
Upload a document, generate training in minutes. The time savings are dramatic for the right use cases. What took weeks can take hours—or less.
Lower expertise bar
You don't need to be an instructional designer to create training. A manager who knows their subject matter can generate a quiz from their documentation. Self-service creation becomes possible.
Easy updates
When source content changes, regenerate the training. The AI works from the current version of your document, not a snapshot frozen in a project file.
Multiple formats from one source
From a single document, generate quizzes, flashcards, roleplay scenarios, and coaching sessions. Traditional tools require building each format separately. Understanding how AI training content creation works helps set realistic expectations.
AI tools shine when: You need to rapidly convert existing documentation into training, create learning at scale, or enable non-designers to produce content.
What AI Tools Struggle With
AI-powered tools have real limitations.
Customization ceiling
You can't pixel-perfect design every interaction. The AI generates from templates and patterns. If you need a specific visual treatment or interaction style, you're limited by what the platform supports.
Complex interactivity
Branching scenarios with multiple variables, game-like experiences, simulations with complex logic—these push beyond what current AI tools can generate. They're optimized for common formats, not edge cases.
Quality depends on inputs
AI transforms what you give it. If your source documentation is disorganized, outdated, or incomplete, the generated training will reflect those problems. Garbage in, garbage out.
Review requirements
AI-generated content needs human review. The AI can misinterpret content, create ambiguous questions, or produce something that's technically correct but contextually wrong. You're not eliminating the need for expertise—you're shifting it to review.
When to Use Each Approach
The choice isn't really "which is better?" It's "which is better for this specific need?"
Use traditional authoring when:
- Brand and design matter significantly. Product launches, customer-facing training, flagship programs where visual quality reflects on your organization.
- You need complex interactivity. Simulations, branching scenarios with many variables, game-based learning.
- Legal or compliance review is required. When every word must be approved by legal, you need precise control over what appears.
- Content is stable. If the material won't change for years, investing in polished development makes sense.
- You have skilled designers available. The expertise exists to use these tools effectively.
Use AI-powered tools when:
- Speed is critical. New product launching next week? Process changing next month? AI tools can respond at business speed.
- Volume exceeds capacity. You need 50 training modules and have bandwidth for 10. AI helps close the gap.
- Content exists in documents. You have policies, procedures, guides, and manuals—you just need them converted to learning formats.
- Content changes frequently. Information that updates quarterly or monthly is better suited to regeneration than manual updates.
- Non-designers need to create. Managers, SMEs, or others who know content but not authoring tools.
- "Good enough" is good enough. Not every training needs to be a masterpiece. Sometimes effective-and-fast beats polished-and-slow.
The Hybrid Approach
Many organizations use both—and that's often the right answer.
| Training Type | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| New hire onboarding | AI-powered | Content exists in docs, speed matters, updates frequent |
| Product launches | AI for speed, traditional for flagship | Depends on importance and timeline |
| Compliance (annual) | Traditional | Legal review required, stable content |
| Compliance (updates) | AI-powered | Quick turnaround needed, incremental changes |
| Process training | AI-powered | Frequent changes, documentation-based |
| Leadership development | Traditional or blended | High-touch, nuanced content |
| Skills certification | AI for assessments, traditional for instruction | Hybrid based on component |
How hybrid works in practice
- Triage incoming requests. Does this need custom development, or can existing content be transformed?
- Use AI for first drafts. Even for traditional projects, AI can accelerate the drafting phase.
- Reserve traditional development for high-stakes, high-visibility, or highly complex needs.
- Enable self-service for routine training needs so L&D can focus on strategic work.
Making the Transition
If you're currently using only traditional tools and considering AI, here's a practical path:
Start with one use case
Pick something that's clearly suited to AI: converting existing documentation into quizzes, or generating training for a process that was previously "just read the manual."
Run a parallel comparison
Create the same training both ways. Compare time invested, quality produced, and ease of updates. Let data inform your decision.
Define your criteria
What determines which approach you'll use? Create a simple decision framework your team can follow.
Avoid the sunk cost trap. "We've invested in Articulate licenses" isn't a reason to use Articulate for everything. Choose the right tool for each job, not the tool you've already paid for.
Train your team
AI tools require different skills than traditional authoring—more focus on content curation, prompt quality, and review. Invest in building these capabilities.
Questions to Consider
What percentage of your training requests could be addressed with existing documentation transformed into learning—versus requiring new content created from scratch?
If most of your work is transforming existing knowledge, AI tools will have the biggest impact. If most is creating net-new content where nothing exists yet, traditional tools may serve you better.
Who needs to be able to create training in your organization?
If only L&D specialists will ever create content, invest in the tools that make them most effective. If managers, SMEs, or others need to contribute, consider the expertise bar each approach requires.
How fast does your content change?
Rapidly evolving content favors regeneration over maintenance. Stable content may justify the investment in more polished development.
The Evolving Landscape
This comparison will change. Traditional authoring tools are adding AI features. AI platforms are adding customization options. The distinction between categories will blur.
But the underlying question will remain: do you need to build from scratch, or can you transform what already exists?
Organizations that figure out when to do which—and build workflows for both—will outpace those locked into a single approach. For a comprehensive overview of the landscape, see our guide to AI for learning and development.
JoySuite represents the AI-powered approach at its most capable. Transform documents into training—quizzes, roleplays, coaching, and flashcards—in minutes. Enable managers to create their own training while your team focuses on strategic programs. And with no per-seat pricing, you can scale to your entire organization without constraint.
