Reference table
ATLAS.ti vs Koji for course evaluation comments
A side-by-side table for quality assurance and institutional research teams deciding where to analyse open-text course evaluation comments. It compares ATLAS.ti, a qualitative analysis package where researchers code imported text with AI help, with Koji, which collects feedback through AI-moderated interviews and analyses it automatically. Use it to decide whether your bottleneck is coding time or thin comments, and whether you need a codebook you control.
What's in this reference table
| ATLAS.ti | Koji for Education | |
|---|---|---|
| Collects feedback | No, you import comments | Yes, AI-moderated text or voice interviews |
| Follow-up questions | Not applicable | Asked during every interview |
| Coding | Manual, with AI Coding suggestions | Automatic thematic analysis |
| Your own codebook | Yes, fully editable | No, themes come from the data |
| Other data sources | Text, PDFs, audio, video, images | Only conversations it collects |
| Quality filtering | Up to the analyst | Scored 1 to 5, low scores left out |
| Skills needed | Trained QDA user | Evaluation design only |
Use this image
Free to use in your docs, decks and posts under CC BY 4.0, as long as you credit Koji with a link to this page. To embed it, paste this into your page:
html
<a href="https://www.koji.so/visuals/atlas-ti-vs-koji-course-evaluation-comments-table"><img src="https://www.koji.so/visuals/atlas-ti-vs-koji-course-evaluation-comments-table/atlas-ti-vs-koji-course-evaluation-comments-table.png" alt="Comparison table of ATLAS.ti and Koji for course evaluation comments: collection, follow-up questions, coding, codebook control and quality filtering." width="1200" height="806" /></a>
<p>Source: <a href="https://www.koji.so/visuals/atlas-ti-vs-koji-course-evaluation-comments-table">ATLAS.ti vs Koji for course evaluation comments</a>, Koji</p>
