GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Education LearningTop 10 Best Student Feedback Software of 2026
Ranking of the top 10 student feedback software tools with features and tradeoffs for schools and instructors, including Alchemer, Qualtrics, Top Hat.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Alchemer is the best fit overall for educational institutions that want automated, API-connected student feedback cycles with controlled permissions, while Qualtrics is the stronger choice when you need governed, LMS-connected survey workflows and deep reporting for larger programs.
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Alchemer
Alchemer API supports programmatic distribution and retrieval of survey responses for closed-loop feedback workflows.
Built for fits when institutions need automated, API-connected student feedback cycles with controlled permissions..
Qualtrics
Editor pickQualtrics supports end-to-end closed-loop feedback workflows with configurable triggers across courses.
Built for fits when institutions need governed, LMS-connected student feedback with automation and deep reporting..
Top Hat
Editor pickIn-course feedback capture with instructor dashboards for response rate and answer distributions.
Built for fits when instructors need recurring in-course feedback and fast closed-loop follow-up without manual rostering..
Related reading
Comparison Table
This comparison table groups student feedback platforms such as Alchemer, Qualtrics, Top Hat, Typeform, and Explorance Blue by how they collect responses, route results, and support classroom workflows. It highlights integration depth, automation and API surface, and admin and governance controls so readers can map each tool’s extensibility, configuration, and data handling tradeoffs to their requirements.
Alchemer
SMBSurvey and feedback platform for educational institutions.
Alchemer API supports programmatic distribution and retrieval of survey responses for closed-loop feedback workflows.
Alchemer supports formative feedback loops and course evaluation instruments with survey logic, question libraries, and multilingual-ready content structures. Built-in anonymity controls support anonymous feedback collection patterns, while analytics and tagging help triage qualitative comments for instructor review. Integration depth is a core differentiator because the automation surface and API enable connecting feedback collection to student information and analytics workflows.
A tradeoff appears in administration complexity when multiple instructors and courses share templates and permissions. Governance requires consistent configuration for access, survey reuse, and response routing. Alchemer fits best when feedback runs on a repeating schedule across departments and outputs must feed institutional research reporting or departmental benchmarking.
- +API-first automation for roster-linked feedback and downstream reporting
- +Question logic and reusable templates for repeated course evaluations
- +Comment tagging and filterable review workflows for instructor triage
- +Strong analytics views for response rate tracking and comparisons
- –Admin setup takes time for permissions and multi-course template governance
- –Advanced workflows require careful configuration to avoid misrouted responses
- –Custom reporting design can be slower without a standard dashboard plan
Institutional research teams
Department benchmarking of midterm feedback
Standardized longitudinal reporting
Academic program leaders
Closed-loop action tracking by course
Faster improvement cycle
Show 2 more scenarios
Instructors and course coordinators
Instructor dashboards for qualitative comments
Targeted course adjustments
Instructors review tagged comments and track response rates to monitor participation.
Learning analytics teams
LMS-linked feedback collection timing
Consolidated feedback signals
Teams coordinate collection windows with external systems and pull results for analytics models.
Best for: Fits when institutions need automated, API-connected student feedback cycles with controlled permissions.
More related reading
Qualtrics
enterpriseExperience management platform for student surveys.
Qualtrics supports end-to-end closed-loop feedback workflows with configurable triggers across courses.
Qualtrics fits academic teams that manage multiple stakeholders for course evaluation instruments and want consistent configuration at scale. Survey configuration supports structured instruments like Likert scale instruments and comment-based qualitative feedback with reporting views for closed-loop feedback. The administrative layer supports RBAC and audit-style governance behaviors that help central teams control who can publish, view, and export results.
A key tradeoff is that achieving strong LMS-aligned collection and longitudinal reporting requires upfront configuration of identity and roster synchronization paths. Qualtrics works best for mid-size to large institutions running midterm course evaluations and end-of-term evaluations that must feed institutional research reporting and departmental benchmarking.
- +RBAC and governance controls support multi-role survey operations
- +Automation and API support workflow integration beyond standard course evaluation
- +LMS integration with roster synchronization supports enrollment-aligned collection
- +Instructor and institutional reporting covers response rate and trend needs
- –Initial LMS and identity configuration takes time to get right
- –Survey templates still require careful settings to avoid unintended disclosure
- –Advanced workflow automation demands admin oversight
- –Deeper reporting use can feel complex for small teaching teams
Institutional research offices
Run longitudinal course evaluation tracking
Consistent cross-term comparisons
LMS administrators
Synchronize rosters for controlled collection
Fewer eligibility errors
Show 2 more scenarios
Faculty course leads
Publish midterm course evaluations
Faster instructional adjustments
Instructor feedback dashboards support viewing results quickly and acting on comment themes mid-course.
Academic program managers
Coordinate peer evaluation workflows
More consistent evaluations
Configured survey logic supports structured student feedback cycles tied to program-level reporting needs.
Best for: Fits when institutions need governed, LMS-connected student feedback with automation and deep reporting.
Top Hat
vertical specialistStudent engagement platform with polling and feedback features.
In-course feedback capture with instructor dashboards for response rate and answer distributions.
Top Hat’s feedback experience centers on prompts that students answer directly in the course context, so response timing aligns with instruction rather than separate surveys. Instructor dashboards focus on response rate and answer distribution, which supports formative feedback loops without switching tools. Roster synchronization reduces manual mapping when classes change between terms.
A tradeoff appears in the workflow design that centers classroom delivery, because some institutions that want standalone pulse surveys may find the setup less flexible than survey-first tools. Top Hat works best when instructors want recurring midterm course evaluation instruments or quick check-ins that translate into immediate instructional adjustments.
- +Instructor dashboards show participation and response distribution in one view
- +Embedded in-course prompting supports faster feedback turnaround than email surveys
- +Roster synchronization reduces assignment targeting errors across changing cohorts
- +LMS integration supports launching feedback within existing course navigation
- –Feedback workflows are less suited for fully standalone institutional survey programs
- –Advanced survey instrument customization needs more setup than quick classroom polls
- –Comment-heavy qualitative coding requires external processes for deeper analysis
Instructors and teaching staff
Weekly formative check-in during lectures
Faster instructional adjustments
Department learning design teams
Midterm course evaluation instrument rollout
Consistent section-level comparisons
Show 1 more scenario
Academic programs and IR
Longitudinal feedback tracking across terms
Better trend visibility
Track recurring feedback results tied to courses as students change over time through synchronized enrollment.
Best for: Fits when instructors need recurring in-course feedback and fast closed-loop follow-up without manual rostering.
Typeform
SMBInteractive form builder for engaging student feedback.
Logic jumps between questions based on each student response, letting single survey runs behave like multiple tailored rubrics.
Typeform turns student feedback collection into conversational, question-by-question forms with branching logic built for qualitative answers. Its core workflow supports response collection, anonymous-to-identifiable modes, and multilingual surveys for classroom-wide and departmental instruments.
Educators can analyze results inside Typeform and send submissions to other systems through integrations. For institutions that need more control, Typeform’s API and automation options enable custom routing, webhooks, and lifecycle handling for feedback loops.
- +Conversational form layout improves completion rates for open-ended student questions
- +Branching logic supports rubric-style follow-ups and targeted prompts
- +Anonymous-to-identifiable controls support survey privacy requirements
- +API and webhooks support custom workflows and data routing out of the form
- –Native reporting stays limited for institutional benchmarking and longitudinal tracking
- –Closed-loop automation needs integrations to map responses back to specific students
- –Large survey volumes can require careful design to avoid long respondent journeys
- –Accessibility support depends on how custom themes and question types are configured
Best for: Fits when educators need conversational, branching student surveys with integration-driven feedback workflows.
Explorance Blue
enterpriseEnterprise course evaluation and student feedback platform.
Anonymous versus identifiable feedback toggle combined with permissioned viewing for results access control.
Explorance Blue collects student feedback through configurable survey and polling workflows for formative and end-of-term check-ins. It provides analytics dashboards for response rate monitoring and comment review, with controls for anonymous versus identifiable collection.
Explorance Blue also supports assignment-style distribution so institutions can time feedback windows across courses and cohorts. Admin tooling focuses on governance for who can create, publish, and view results across departments.
- +Configurable survey and polling workflows for timed feedback windows
- +Response analytics and comment review support fast instructor follow-up
- +Anonymous versus identifiable collection supports different governance needs
- +Admin controls cover publishing and result viewing permissions
- –Survey configuration takes more steps than basic form builders
- –Automation and API surface appear limited for deep LMS automation
- –Long comment tagging and qualitative coding workflows feel constrained
- –Cohort-based distribution can require careful roster alignment
Best for: Fits when universities need timed student feedback collection with admin governance.
LimeSurvey
enterpriseOpen-source survey tool for academic research and student feedback.
The question-level branching and survey-flow controls let teams implement logic-heavy course evaluation instruments like conditional rubrics and respondent routing.
LimeSurvey is a survey system that differentiates itself with a survey authoring engine designed for complex branching, question logic, and repeatable instrument workflows. It supports multilingual survey delivery, configurable anonymity behavior, and export-ready response data for course evaluation instruments and midterm course evaluations.
The tool also supports administrator governance via role controls and granular settings per survey, which helps departments standardize feedback collection patterns. LimeSurvey can fit institutions that need more than basic pulse surveys and want instrument-level control over respondent routing and question behavior.
- +Advanced question logic supports branching, quotas, and timed responses
- +Strong multilingual survey support for departmental and cohort instruments
- +Anonymity options enable anonymous-to-identifiable collection workflows
- +Exports and reporting fit institutional research reporting needs
- –Course feedback dashboards are limited compared with LMS-native tooling
- –Survey building can be slow for teams without standardized templates
- –Integrations depend on external SSO and LMS connections
- –Admin governance requires careful configuration to avoid inconsistent settings
Best for: Fits when higher-ed teams need complex survey logic and multilingual instruments without LMS dependence.
Formstack
SMBForm builder for collecting student data and feedback.
Form templates combine conditional logic, structured inputs, and API-first data delivery for custom closed-loop processing.
Formstack is a student feedback workflow tool that focuses on structured intake, routing, and multi-channel response collection. It supports survey and form building with conditional logic so student comments can be gathered consistently across departments.
Formstack’s integration options and API are geared toward connecting feedback submissions to institutional systems and automations. Admin users get governance controls for templates, access, and form permissions that matter when feedback is distributed across instructors.
- +Conditional form logic supports branched student feedback questions
- +API and webhooks enable custom ingestion into campus systems
- +Role-based form access limits who can edit or publish surveys
- +Comment and attachment fields cover qualitative feedback capture
- –Rubric-style grading workflows require extra configuration
- –Advanced analytics stay basic for Likert and trend segmentation
- –Multi-language rollout needs manual effort for each template
- –Closed-loop workflows depend on external automation rather than native orchestration
Best for: Fits when departments need configurable feedback forms with API-driven routing to student information workflows.
SurveyMonkey
SMBOnline survey tool for collecting student opinions.
SurveyMonkey API coverage for programmatic survey creation, response collection, and data export supports automated feedback loops.
SurveyMonkey is a survey and feedback tool used for course evaluation instruments and pulse surveys with configurable question types. It supports multiple publishing modes such as share links and embedded forms, and it can collect anonymous-to-identifiable responses for instructor feedback dashboards.
Reporting centers on response rate analytics, cross-tab views, and exportable results for institutional research reporting. SurveyMonkey also offers integrations and an API for syncing data sources and automating survey operations for student feedback workflows.
- +Question library supports survey logic for tailored course feedback instruments
- +Cross-tab reporting and filters make it easier to segment responses by group
- +Anonymous-to-identifiable toggle supports instructor and student trust needs
- +API enables automation for survey distribution and result retrieval workflows
- –LMS integration depth is limited compared with tools built for gradebook passback
- –Advanced governance like granular RBAC and audit logging needs careful plan design
- –Qualitative coding and comment tagging workflows are less structured than specialized tools
- –Real-time polling setups require more manual work than dedicated classroom tools
Best for: Fits when instructors and small academic teams need repeatable surveys plus API automation for student feedback loops.
Watermark
enterpriseAssessment and course evaluation software for higher education.
Configurable survey targeting tied to synchronized course rosters with dashboards for instructors and administrators.
Watermark collects student feedback through configurable survey instruments and routes results to instructor and admin dashboards. It supports roster synchronization and survey access control so feedback can be tied to courses and sections without manual lists.
Feedback can be analyzed with response and completion analytics that highlight response-rate and item-level patterns. It also supports integration with education systems so survey delivery and identity mapping can follow existing authentication and enrollment flows.
- +Course and section targeting reduces manual survey setup work
- +Instructor dashboards make item-level results easy to interpret
- +Completion and response-rate analytics support tracking participation
- +Roster synchronization reduces identity drift across terms
- –Rubric-style assessment workflows are limited versus rubric-first tools
- –Advanced analysis needs more configuration than basic polling
- –Custom automation depends on available integration endpoints
- –Data access controls require careful role assignment to avoid oversharing
Best for: Fits when departments need course-linked student feedback with controlled roster delivery and practical response analytics.
QuestionPro
SMBSurvey software with specific academic and education features.
Built-in anonymous collection settings combined with detailed participation and response monitoring dashboards for time-bound course surveys.
QuestionPro is a student feedback and course evaluation tool with configurable survey templates and multi-format question types. It supports anonymous collection workflows and provides reporting views for both quantitative results and open-text responses.
The system is designed for distribution at scale with roster-style targeting, response monitoring, and exportable results for institutional research needs. Admins can control access for survey management and reporting so instructors and departments share the same workflow without exposing unrelated surveys.
- +Survey builder supports structured scales plus open-text feedback in one instrument
- +Anonymous response collection workflow supports sensitive student comments
- +Response dashboards show participation and trend views across a survey cycle
- +Exports support downstream analysis in common formats
- –LMS integration coverage is uneven compared with education-focused survey tools
- –Rubric-based assessment workflows are not as purpose-built as dedicated grading systems
- –Cross-survey automation requires more manual setup than native workflow engines
- –Advanced text analytics features require additional configuration to be usable
Best for: Fits when departments need repeatable student feedback instruments with exportable reporting for analysis.
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 education learning, Alchemer stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
How to Choose the Right student feedback software
This buyer’s guide covers how to select student feedback software across survey workflows, in-course capture, and analytics for instructor and institutional dashboards. It evaluates Alchemer, Qualtrics, Top Hat, Typeform, Explorance Blue, LimeSurvey, Formstack, SurveyMonkey, Watermark, and QuestionPro on the mechanisms each tool supports.
The guide maps each tool to concrete needs such as roster-linked closed-loop workflows, governed multi-role survey operations, multilingual instruments, and anonymous-to-identifiable control. It also highlights common setup and governance pitfalls that show up when survey routing, permissions, and dashboards are implemented without a clear plan.
Student feedback software that turns course check-ins into routed, reviewable responses
Student feedback software collects student responses through configurable survey or form workflows and then routes results into instructor and admin dashboards for follow-up. It typically solves survey distribution, response-rate tracking, comment review, and repeatable course evaluation patterns across terms and cohorts.
Institutions and teaching teams use these tools to support closed-loop feedback loops, timed midterm and end-of-term check-ins, and comment-to-action workflows. Alchemer and Qualtrics represent survey platforms built for governed, API-connected operations across many courses, while Top Hat focuses on in-course feedback capture tied to instructor dashboards.
Mechanisms that determine whether feedback becomes actionable, not just collected
The key differences across student feedback tools show up in how they route responses, handle identity and permissions, and support repeatable instrument workflows. These mechanisms affect whether feedback can be reviewed safely, tied to the right roster, and reused across courses.
Tools like Alchemer and Qualtrics emphasize API and automation for closed-loop workflows, while Watermark and Explorance Blue focus on course-linked targeting and controlled viewing. Typeform and LimeSurvey emphasize logic-heavy instruments that adapt questions based on each student response.
API and programmatic workflow access for closed-loop loops
Alchemer provides an API that supports programmatic distribution and retrieval of survey responses for closed-loop feedback workflows. Qualtrics also supports extensive API coverage and configurable triggers across courses, which helps operationalize repeatable closed-loop cycles beyond basic course evaluation instruments.
Role-based governance and controlled results visibility
Qualtrics provides RBAC and governance controls that support multi-role survey operations across administrators and instructors. Explorance Blue adds permissioned viewing tied to an anonymous versus identifiable feedback toggle, which helps prevent results oversharing while still enabling instructor follow-up.
Roster synchronization and course or section targeting
Watermark supports configurable survey targeting tied to synchronized course rosters and routes results to instructor and admin dashboards. Top Hat reduces assignment targeting errors across changing cohorts by combining roster synchronization with in-course prompting.
Logic-heavy survey flows for rubric-style follow-ups
LimeSurvey supports question-level branching and survey-flow controls that implement logic-heavy course evaluation instruments with respondent routing and conditional rubrics. Typeform applies logic jumps between questions based on each student response, allowing one survey run to behave like multiple tailored rubrics.
Instructor triage workflows for qualitative comment handling
Alchemer supports comment tagging and filterable review workflows that help instructor triage for follow-up. Watermark and QuestionPro both emphasize dashboards and participation tracking, and SurveyMonkey adds cross-tab segmentation plus structured filters for review workflows that extend to exportable results.
Multilingual survey delivery for departmental and cohort instruments
LimeSurvey includes strong multilingual survey support for departmental and cohort instruments. Typeform also supports multilingual surveys, but its native reporting is more limited for benchmarking and longitudinal tracking than instruments built around institutional dashboards.
Decision paths for choosing student feedback software based on routing, governance, and workflow fit
The selection process should start with how feedback must be routed and who needs to see it, then move to instrument logic depth. Tools differ sharply in whether closed-loop automation is native or depends on external integrations.
The decision paths below focus on operational fit for course targeting, permissioned access, and logic complexity so the selected tool matches how feedback is actually collected and acted on.
Map feedback routing to rosters and identity changes
If feedback must stay aligned to course sections across enrollment shifts, choose tools with roster synchronization like Watermark and Top Hat. Watermark ties targeting to synchronized rosters and routes results to instructor and admin dashboards, while Top Hat combines roster synchronization with in-course prompting so feedback hits enrolled students.
Decide whether closed-loop automation needs an API-first surface
If feedback actions must be automated across systems, prioritize API-first workflow access like Alchemer and SurveyMonkey. Alchemer’s API supports programmatic distribution and retrieval for closed-loop cycles, and SurveyMonkey’s API supports programmatic survey creation, response collection, and data export.
Choose governance depth by defining who can create, publish, and view results
If multi-role survey operations require RBAC and governed access, prioritize Qualtrics for role-based access controls and governance across instructors and administrators. If result visibility must be permissioned around anonymity controls, Explorance Blue combines an anonymous versus identifiable feedback toggle with permissioned viewing.
Pick instrument logic depth based on rubric-style follow-ups
If the instrument must change questions based on each student response, choose LimeSurvey for question-level branching and respondent routing. If the survey experience must be conversational while still adapting follow-up questions, Typeform uses branching logic so one survey run behaves like multiple tailored rubrics.
Select the capture mode that matches turnaround expectations
If the target is fast classroom feedback with instructor dashboards, choose Top Hat for embedded in-course feedback capture. If the target is end-of-term or department instruments with structured collection patterns, choose Alchemer or Qualtrics for survey workflow controls and dashboarding.
Who should use student feedback software in practice
Different student feedback tools fit different operational models. Some tools are built for institutional survey programs with governed operations, while others are built for instructor-driven in-course feedback cycles.
The audience segments below follow the tools’ stated best-for fit so each segment matches collection workflow shape and governance expectations.
Institutions running automated, API-connected feedback cycles with controlled permissions
Alchemer fits institutions that need automated, API-connected student feedback cycles with controlled permissions. Qualtrics also fits this operating model with LMS integration, roster synchronization, and automation and API support for closed-loop feedback across courses.
Universities needing governed survey operations tied to LMS identity and enrollment
Qualtrics fits when governed, LMS-connected feedback collection must align to student identity and enrollment changes through roster synchronization and single sign-on. Its role-based access controls support multi-role survey operations while instructor and institutional dashboards cover response-rate and trend needs.
Instructors and academic teams prioritizing fast in-class capture and follow-up
Top Hat fits instructors needing recurring in-course feedback and fast closed-loop follow-up without manual rostering. Its instructor dashboards show participation and response distributions in one view tied to embedded prompts during class time.
Departments building complex, multilingual instruments with conditional question behavior
LimeSurvey fits higher-ed teams needing complex survey logic and multilingual instruments without relying on LMS-native workflows. It supports question-level branching and survey-flow controls for conditional rubrics and timed respondent routing.
Departments that want exportable survey instruments and manageable participation analytics
QuestionPro fits departments needing repeatable student feedback instruments with exportable reporting for analysis. SurveyMonkey also fits instructors and small academic teams that need repeatable surveys with API automation plus response rate analytics and cross-tab segmentation.
Common implementation pitfalls that reduce response quality or block follow-up
Many failures in student feedback programs come from mismatched routing and governance decisions. The tools below expose different failure modes when permissions, dashboards, and automation are not planned as a system.
The mistakes listed here connect directly to concrete cons observed across the reviewed tools so teams can avoid wasting cycles during instrument rollout.
Launching complex survey workflows without a permission and template governance plan
Alchemer and Qualtrics both require admin setup time for permissions and careful template settings for multi-course operations. Set explicit governance for who can create, publish, and view results before enabling advanced workflows, or misrouted responses and slow reporting design work will occur.
Building closed-loop automation that cannot map responses back to students
Top Hat and Typeform both focus on feedback capture experiences that often require integration for mapping responses to specific students for full closed-loop automation. Plan the integration points early, or comment-heavy review and follow-up will depend on manual processing.
Underestimating the work needed for logic-heavy surveys and consistent instrument reuse
LimeSurvey can slow down if teams lack standardized templates for survey building and repeatable routing patterns. Typeform’s branching logic can also require careful design for larger survey volumes so completion does not suffer due to long respondent journeys.
Assuming rubric-style assessment workflows exist without extra configuration
Formstack’s rubric-style grading workflows require extra configuration, and QuestionPro notes rubric-based assessment is not as purpose-built as dedicated grading systems. If rubric scoring and grading workflows are the primary requirement, survey tools alone can force additional setup work and reduce grading consistency.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Alchemer, Qualtrics, Top Hat, Typeform, Explorance Blue, LimeSurvey, Formstack, SurveyMonkey, Watermark, and QuestionPro using three criteria that match student feedback operations: features, ease of use, and value. Features carried the most weight because student feedback success depends on survey workflow controls, routing, and dashboard capabilities that teams use every term. Ease of use and value each accounted for the remaining balance so the final ranking favored tools that are not only capable but also practical for ongoing feedback cycles.
Alchemer separated from lower-ranked tools because its API supports programmatic distribution and retrieval of survey responses for closed-loop feedback workflows. That strength raised the features score by connecting survey execution to automated follow-up, while strong comment tagging and filterable instructor review workflows improved ease of use during triage.
Frequently Asked Questions About student feedback software
How do student feedback tools support closed-loop follow-up across semesters?
Which tools handle roster synchronization so surveys match current enrollments?
What integration paths matter for LMS-connected feedback collection?
How does single sign-on and identity mapping work in student feedback software?
What breaks if survey anonymity controls are not aligned with data export and comment workflows?
Which tools support complex branching logic for rubric-based assessment and conditional prompts?
When should teams use midterm course evaluations versus pulse surveys in these tools?
How do admins control who can create, publish, and view student feedback results?
What data migration or schema planning is needed to connect feedback exports to institutional reporting?
Where does extensibility matter when feedback needs custom routing beyond dashboards?
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Education Learning alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of education learning tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare education learning tools→