Why Comparison Charts Don’t Matter in Music Education
Recently, a competitor published a comparison chart that contains several inaccuracies. While I generally do not respond to competitor marketing, in this case I believe it is appropriate to address the factual errors presented. I have worked with many products in this industry, including those of competitors, and my approach has always been to let educators determine which tools best serve their students. In professional settings, I avoid making negative statements about other companies, as the most effective evaluation comes from teachers trying products directly in their classrooms. Our focus at MusicFirst has consistently been on providing high-quality solutions at affordable prices. A link to this chart was shared with me yesterday, and I would like to provide clarification regarding the inaccuracies it contains. Although the chart appears clear and authoritative at first glance, it employs a typical comparison chart strategy: highlighting features of limited significance while overlooking notable gaps. The headline above the chart claims that they have “more music education-enhancing tools than any other platform”. At last count there are 15 different software titles available - with 6 of them included with the MusicFirst Performance Bundle.
What These Charts Get Wrong
Comparison charts often omit information that is relevant to music educators. For example, they may not indicate whether a platform supports ensemble learning across devices, or whether it provides assessment workflows designed to save grading time. Instead, they frequently highlight smaller features that may not be central to teaching and learning. The chart in question contains several inaccuracies and misrepresentations. It suggests that receiving feedback only after a full performance is a disadvantage. However, the purpose of performance assessment software is to encourage consistent practice rather than repeated attempts and start-overs when students see that they’ve made a mistake, which can lead to frustration. PracticeFirst powered by MatchMySound© was designed to support meaningful student practice.
The chart also states that there are no built-in video lessons, but the MusicFirst Classroom provides access to the MusicProfessor library of instructional videos. It claims there are no interactive fingering charts and diagrams, yet these were introduced in December along with numerous fingering quizzes, which are also included in Musition. It states there are no professional accompaniments, and while MIDI is widely used, many files use real audio accompaniments. The suggestion that full access to the music catalog requires an extra fee is incorrect; all licensed users have access to the included library without additional cost. Regarding pricing, discounts are available for large seat counts, multi-year contracts, and district-wide adoptions. The claim that Classroom Analytics (maybe this a really just a feature name?) is not available is also inaccurate, as the MusicFirst Classroom includes Assessment Analytics, a customizable gradebook, and a Student Portfolio feature. The chart also references method book volume as an advantage. While it emphasizes having hundreds of method books, music educators typically focus on specific, widely used methods rather than quantity.
Similar misrepresentations appear regarding Sight Reading Factory. The chart overlooks that SRF does offer live customer support, including phone calls. It also provides a wide range of analytical tools such as practice logs, exercise counts, number of attempts, a gradebook, and access to student submissions. On pricing, the chart does not reflect available discount structures, and the $45 figure cited refers only to a teacher license, not per-user costs.
The MusicFirst Performance Bundle
My favorite part of comparison charts like these are all of the incredibly useful tools that the MusicFirst Classroom has that others don’t: the ability to assess polyphonic instruments (piano, guitar), customizable assessment rubrics, assessment of note duration, a massive content library with year-long courses, the ability to assess students when they slow down or speed up their tempo, an amazing audio recorder with the ability to embed audio, images and video, thousands of pre-made assessments, memorization mode, sight reading mode, adjustable scoring benchmarks, and on and on. We know from talking to teachers that our feature set is really useful and time saving. Now, if you want to see what a comprehensive digital solution for ensemble directors actually looks like, you don’t need a magician or a menu full of checkboxes. You need the MusicFirst Performance Bundle.
This is not a bundle cobbled together to look good on a chart. It’s a carefully curated suite of tools that work together to support the way real teachers actually teach.
MusicFirst Classroom is your hub - assignments, portfolios, grading, communication. Everything in one place, and it runs on anything with a browser.
PracticeFirst powered by MatchMySound© delivers immediate, automatic feedback on pitch, rhythm, and tone. There are over 33,000 pieces of assessible music inside our ever-expanding library.
Sight Reading Factory keeps students sharp with unlimited customizable sight-reading exercises that can be assessed instantly. This software is amazing and music teachers know that.
AuraliaFirst and MusitionFirst develop core musicianship skills: ear training, theory, rhythm, scales - you name it.
Flat for Education unlocks creativity with browser-based composition and arranging, all integrated into the workflow. It includes pre-made worksheets and an seamless integration that allows you to open any notation file directly in PracticeFirst.
In addition to these software titles, the vast MusicFirst Content Library gives you ready-made curricular content from trusted publishers for ALL of your ensembles (band, choir, orchestra, jazz ensemble, modern band, mariachi) so you’re never building from scratch. On top of all of that, and I believe most importantly, MusicFirst has an incredible support team that are available via phone and email within minutes - not days. Many of them were music education majors in school and know what teachers are going through. They speak fluent music teacher - not tech jargon.
Why This Matters More Than Checkmarks
The difference between MusicFirst and other solutions is not measured by the number of boxes checked on a comparison chart. The most reliable way for music educators to determine which option is best for their program is by testing the software with their students and considering key questions: What is the purpose of using a technology tool in a performance class? Is it primarily for motivation, assessment, or engagement? How important is scoring accuracy? Comparison charts are structured to emphasize the strengths of the author’s product. What matters most is not the presence or absence of minor features, but whether the platform provides an efficient workflow that saves teachers time, delivers meaningful feedback to students, and supports programs of all sizes—from small middle school ensembles to large high school marching bands.
When evaluating solutions, the essential consideration is which tools best support student growth as musicians. The MusicFirst Performance Bundle is designed with that objective in mind, offering a comprehensive set of tools to help students improve their musical skills. Educators may explore its capabilities through a free 30-day trial to determine if it meets the needs of their program.