Alternatives & comparisons
ProctorExam Alternative for the AI Cheating Era (2026)
ProctorExam pairs identity verification and browser lockdown with live or AI-recorded review, used widely by universities and certification bodies. It does identity and visible behavior well. But Cluely isn't visible to any of it. Here is what sits below the observation layer.
Other exam-security alternatives to consider
No single tool covers every layer. Here is how the rest of the lockdown-browser and proctoring-service field compares on the same AI-cheating threat model.
What ProctorExam Does
ProctorExam is a remote proctoring platform used by universities and certification bodies, built around an AI/human-hybrid review model: candidates are verified by ID, then monitored through a webcam and, in many configurations, a second device or room-scan camera for a full view of the physical space. Review can happen live, via automated AI flagging, or as a recorded session checked after the fact by a human. A browser lockdown component restricts what the candidate can do on-screen during the exam. It works well for the things a camera and a room scan can observe: confirming the right person is testing, a second person or device in the room, obvious browser misuse.
In short: ProctorExam is built to confirm who is testing and watch the candidate and their physical environment, not what else is running on the machine underneath it.
What ProctorExam Cannot See
Identity verification and a room scan answer questions upstream of and around the exam: is this the right candidate, and is anyone else physically present? Neither says anything about what runs on that candidate's machine once the session starts. An invisible AI overlay like Cluely runs at the OS layer, above the browser lockdown component, and marks itself excluded from the screen-capture APIs any review mode (live, AI, or record-and-review) relies on. A correctly identified, browser-locked candidate sitting alone in frame can still be reading answers off a surface none of ProctorExam's cameras were built to capture.
The same gap applies to on-device LLMs. A model running in local memory produces no webcam-visible behavior and no network traffic to intercept. Aiseptor detects the technique instead of the appearance: a screen-capture-exclusion flag, GPU VRAM deltas, and DNS/SNI to AI endpoints, regardless of process name.
Confirming identity and watching the room solve real, separate problems. Neither one reaches the OS layer where these two techniques actually run.
Comparison: ProctorExam vs. Network-Layer Enforcement
| Capability | ProctorExam | Aiseptor (Network Layer) |
|---|---|---|
| Live / AI-recorded review + ID verification | Yes | No |
| Browser lockdown extension | Yes | Complementary |
| Invisible AI overlays (Cluely, Pluely, unknown forks) | No | Yes |
| On-device LLMs (Ollama, LM Studio) | No | Yes |
| OS-wide network / DNS enforcement | No | Yes |
| Data collected | Webcam, ID document, room scan, browser activity | Network access signals only |
Complementary Architecture
ProctorExam = identity, room-scan, review, and browser-lockdown layer. Aiseptor = network and device layer. Aiseptor sits beneath ProctorExam, not in place of it. ProctorExam's identity verification and live/AI review catch fraud Aiseptor does not address: a wrong test-taker, a second person in the room, an obvious environment violation. Aiseptor catches the device and network AI surface none of ProctorExam's review modes can see: the overlay running at the OS layer, the local model in memory. We don't claim to replace identity verification or physical proctoring.
See also: ProctorU alternatives · Examity alternatives
Frequently Asked Questions
Does ProctorExam detect Cluely?
ProctorExam's review, whether live, AI-flagged, or fully recorded, watches the candidate through a webcam and a second device or room-scan camera, plus the exam browser. Cluely is an OS-layer overlay that excludes itself from the same screen-capture APIs a reviewer or its AI would see. None of ProctorExam's review modes observe a surface the overlay was built to be absent from.
Does ProctorExam detect AI cheating generally?
ProctorExam's AI-recorded review and live invigilators can flag behaviors visible to a webcam or room-scan: looking off-screen, a second person, a phone in frame, suspicious browser activity. They cannot see an OS-layer overlay that hides from screen capture, or an on-device language model running in local memory with no network traffic.
Why can't ProctorExam's identity verification catch AI overlay use?
Identity verification confirms who is sitting the exam, not what else is running on their device once the exam starts. Those are separate problems: identity fraud and AI-assisted cheating during a legitimately-authenticated session require different controls.
Is there a ProctorExam alternative without webcam?
Yes. Aiseptor enforces exam integrity at the network and device layer: no webcam, no room scan, no browser extension. The audit record is metadata about what was and wasn't reachable during the session, not a recording of the candidate. Full data model on the trust page.
Where Aiseptor Fits: Beneath, Not Instead Of
Aiseptor is a layer, not a rip-and-replace. It sits beneath ProctorExam, and beneath any lockdown browser or proctoring service, owning the device and network layer those tools architecturally cannot reach. Keep what you have for browser control or webcam proctoring; add Aiseptor for the OS- and network-level AI threats it was built to stop. The exam page can open in a normal browser while Aiseptor enforces the machine boundary.
What Aiseptor does not do: physical and environment security is out of scope. Aiseptor does not verify identity, watch the room, or catch a phone, a paper note, or an in-person accomplice off-camera. For those, pair Aiseptor with a live proctor or an identity-verification step. Aiseptor secures the device and the network path, not the physical room around it.
Identity confirmed. Room scanned. The device, still unwatched.
Aiseptor pairs with ProctorExam's identity and review layer to close the network and device gap underneath. The audit record is metadata about what was and wasn't reachable, not a recording of your candidates.