Readiness and performance assessment for immersive training

Last updated October 21, 2026

Tools that measure what trainees do inside simulations and turn it into evidence of proficiency and readiness.

This guide lists 12 providers of assessment and analytics for immersive training, in alphabetical order: 2 Circle, 4C Strategies, Aptima, CAE, Cognitive3D, Cubic, Design Interactive, Eduworks, HTX Labs, Lockheed Martin, Moth+Flame and SoarTech. The order is not a ranking. Each provider is described with the same fields, from its own materials and public records, with sources.

1. Questions buyers ask

2. Overview

This category covers tools that measure how people perform in simulators, virtual reality and live, virtual and constructive exercises, then report results to instructors and commanders. Army doctrine describes virtual training as computer-generated simulators, constructive training as models that exercise command and staff functions, and the after action review as a guided analysis of performance.

Measurement matters because readiness reporting is required by law. Federal law requires one DoD readiness reporting system that measures units and the capability of training establishments, and DoD built the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) in response, including ratings of mission-essential tasks.

Data standards shape what buyers can do with results. xAPI, an IEEE standard, records learner experience data in a learning record store, and the ADL Initiative's reference for DoD Instruction 1322.26 says DoD components shall implement xAPI and related Total Learning Architecture standards. The ADL Initiative itself has been formally sunset.

The problem

GAO reported in 2013 that neither the Army nor the Marine Corps had established outcome metrics to measure the impact of simulation-based training on performance or proficiency, or a method for identifying its costs.

In 2016 GAO found that Army policies did not define how to analyze the effectiveness of virtual training devices, and that training strategies did not describe how tasks could be evaluated when performed with a virtual device.

Army doctrine asks commanders to sustain task proficiency over time and to rate collective tasks as Trained, Practiced or Untrained; it says virtual training can supply the repetitions that sustain proficiency.

Mandates and programs

• 10 U.S.C. 117 and the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS). Federal law requires a single, comprehensive DoD readiness reporting system that measures units and training establishments' ability to provide trained forces. GAO says DoD began developing DRRS after Congress directed such a system in 1999; it carries mission-essential task capability ratings alongside resource and training metrics.
• DoD Instruction 1322.26, Distributed Learning (DL). DoD cites DoDI 1322.26 as an authority for its training records. The ADL Initiative's implementation reference, which describes the instruction as updated in 2017, says DoD components shall implement Total Learning Architecture data standards, including xAPI, and calls them mandatory DISR standards.
• ADL Initiative, xAPI and the Total Learning Architecture. The ADL Initiative's GitHub reference site says the program has been formally sunset and its repositories archived for public use. xAPI continues as IEEE 9274.1.1-2023, which defines a JSON data model and web API for sending learner experience data to a learning record store.
• GAO reviews of simulation training effectiveness (GAO-13-698 and GAO-16-636). GAO recommended in 2013 that the Army and Marine Corps develop outcome-oriented metrics for simulation-based training, and in 2016 that the Army define how to analyze virtual training device effectiveness after fielding; GAO lists that 2016 recommendation as implemented.
• Army Synthetic Training Environment (STE). Army contract records show STE live training systems work in 2023 and a 2025 multiple-award contract for STE tactical engagement simulation systems. Trade press reported in 2020 that a commercial exercise-evaluation platform was a core component of STE's Training Management Tool, then in development.

3. Providers compared

Every provider below is described with the same fields and the same length limits, from its own published materials and public records. Where a provider does not publish something, the entry says “Not published.” Providers are in alphabetical order.

4. What to ask a vendor

1. What exactly does the tool measure, and from which data sources? Scores are only as meaningful as their inputs, so confirm whether results come from simulator data, observer ratings, or records combined from several systems.
2. What evidence shows the measures predict real job or mission performance? GAO found the Army and Marine Corps lacked outcome metrics for simulation-based training, so ask how scores were validated beyond completion and participation.
3. Can the tool export results as xAPI to a learning record store we control? xAPI is the IEEE standard for learner experience data, and the ADL Initiative's DoDI 1322.26 reference lists it among the learning data standards DoD components shall implement.
4. Who owns the performance data, and can we export all of it? Ownership and export terms decide whether you can reuse results in other systems or move to another vendor later.
5. How do instructors review, annotate or override automated scores? Army doctrine defines the after action review as a guided analysis with a facilitator, participants and observers, so automated scores should support that discussion.
6. Can results map to our task standards and proficiency ratings? Army units rate collective tasks as Trained, Practiced or Untrained, and DRRS carries mission-essential task ratings, so outputs should line up with those standards.
7. Which networks, impact levels and authorities to operate does the tool hold? Where a tool can run, including classified or disconnected networks, depends on accreditations you should confirm with your program office before buying.
8. Can we pilot the tool in our own training environment first? GAO found Army effectiveness analyses of virtual devices used differing objectives and approaches, so a structured pilot gives you comparable evidence.

5. How buying works

Federal law defines an SBIR third phase (Phase III) as work that derives from, extends or completes earlier SBIR efforts, funded outside the SBIR program, including follow-on federal awards for products the government uses. Ask vendors whether their tool has prior SBIR awards.

GSA runs the Multiple Award Schedule, also called the Federal Supply Schedule, through which federal, state and local buyers get commercial products and services. Ask vendors for their schedule contract number and the special item numbers it covers.

DoD may use other transaction authority under 10 U.S.C. 4022 for prototype projects directly relevant to the mission effectiveness of DoD personnel. Trade press reported in 2020 that the Army's Synthetic Training Environment had awarded such agreements to an exercise-evaluation software company.

For SBIR, GSA schedules, OTAs and other routes in general, see How buying works.

6. More questions