Objective questions
MCQs graded automatically the moment a student submits, with negative marking, shuffling and a pass mark you set per test.
Assessment for institutions
The only platform institutions need for online and offline testing
Question types
Every question type. One assessment.
Mix objective, written, and coding questions in the same test, then run it online or print it without splitting the workflow.
Written answers
Descriptive responses go to the teacher who marks them, with partial credit and a queue that puts one question in front of you across the whole class.
Coding questions
Students write, run and debug real code in the browser, checked against visible and hidden test cases in five languages.
Formulae and diagrams
Maths notation and images sit inside the question itself, so the same paper reads correctly on a screen and on the sheet you hand out.
Worked solutions
A solution can be stored with the question and shown to whoever is marking - and never to the student sitting the paper.
Shuffled print sets
Print the same paper in a different order for each row of the hall, with the answer key that belongs to each set.
The problem
Testing coding on paper is like testing swimming on dry land
You cannot tell if the code actually works
A handwritten solution may look correct, but there is no compiler, runtime, or test case to prove it. Teachers are left judging intent instead of seeing whether the student can produce working code.
Students are tested on recall, not real programming
Coding in practice means writing, running, debugging, and improving code. On paper, students are often rewarded for remembering syntax instead of demonstrating how they actually solve problems.
Grading takes too long and still leaves room for errors
Every answer has to be checked manually, and teachers often have to interpret whether the logic would have worked. That makes large coding assessments slow to grade and difficult to keep fully consistent.
The final score does not explain where the student struggled
A mark may show that a student performed poorly, but not whether the problem was logic, syntax, edge cases, debugging, or a particular programming concept. That makes meaningful follow-up much harder.
How it works
From question to working code to actionable results
Create the assessment, assign it, let students code in a real environment, and review exactly how they performed, all in one workflow.
1
Build the assessment
Create coding questions, set marks, choose languages, and add visible or hidden test cases.
2
Assign & schedule
Send the test to a class or selected students, then set the time window, duration, and attempt rules.
3
Students code & submit
Students write, run, debug, and submit real code in the browser while integrity events are recorded.
4
Analyse the results
Review scores, code, and test-case performance to see where students struggled and what needs follow-up.
Capabilities
Built for the full assessment workflow
Create, run, monitor, grade, and analyse coding assessments without using multiple tools.
Coding assessments
Run real coding tests in multiple languages with visible and hidden test cases.
Test-case feedback
See exactly which cases passed, failed, or need review. Not just the final score.
Reporting
Turn assessment results into clear class, student, and question-level insights.
Cohort analytics
Compare performance across classes, assessments, and cohorts from one view.
Integrity controls
Use fullscreen, tab-switch tracking, and review flags during the assessment.
Shared question bank
Keep coding questions, test cases, and tags in one reusable department-wide library.
In more detail
How Teemly goes beyond the test
Teemly goes beyond running the test - helping institutions review integrity, connect paper and online results, improve question quality, and see what needs attention next
Reporting
See what happened, and what didn't
Reports show weak topics, students falling behind, changes between assessments, and even classes or subjects that haven't been assessed at all. You see what needs attention, not just the data that already exists.
See the reports
Integrity
A flag starts a review. It doesn't make the decision.
Tab switches, clipboard activity, and other integrity events are recorded for review. Every decision can be signed off by a named teacher, with the original evidence kept intact.
Running a test
One platform
Paper and online results belong in the same record
Online coding tests and offline assessments feed into one student record. Absences stay absences, unfinished grading stays out of standings, and teachers get one view of performance across both.
Everything included
Question library
Write once. Improve and reuse continuously.
Store coding questions, test cases, tags, difficulty, and review status in one shared library. Those same tags feed directly into topic and learning-gap reporting.
The question bank
PrintMark
Take any assessment to paper, without losing the data
Plenty of assessment still happens on paper, and it usually lives in a register that never meets the rest of a student's record. Here it does.
Print any test as a paper
Anything already in your question library becomes a question paper. Nothing is retyped, and the paper carries your institution's name.
You choose the layout
A quarter, half or full page of answer space per question, in one column or two. Questions never split across a page break.
A separate answer key
Prints on its own, marked with the option letters a student sees rather than raw numbers, so it can be handed to whoever is correcting.
Marks in by keyboard
Students down, questions across, one number per cell. One-mark questions move on as you type, so a whole class goes in without reaching for the mouse.
A blank is not a zero
Nor is an absence. A student who missed the paper gets no record for it, rather than a mark of nought that quietly drags the class average down.
Feeds the same reports
A paper test lands in the same student record as an online one, so topic, outcome and per-question reporting take it in without a separate step.
Who it is for
From classrooms to cohorts, one workflow
From school classrooms to coaching batches and university departments, Teemly adapts to how each institution runs and reviews coding assessments.
Schools
Computer science departments running coding assessments for their own classes.
- Auto-grade objective and coding answers
- Assign tests to classes or named students
- Share one department-wide question bank
- Import student rosters in bulk
- Run coding tests directly in the browser
Coaching institutes
Training centres preparing batches of students and measuring every one of them.
- Compare performance across batches
- See weak topics after every test
- Identify students falling behind early
- Keep paper and online mocks in one record
- Match real exam patterns with timers, shuffling, and negative marking
Colleges & universities
Institutions running coding assessment across many departments and cohorts at once.
- Compare cohorts across terms and years
- Spot subjects with no assessment activity
- Review integrity flags with named accountability
- Separate admin and teacher access
- Schedule reports to department heads automatically
Built for teaching, not hiring
Hiring tools help evaluate candidates for a role. Teemly helps educators understand student performance, identify gaps, and decide what needs attention next.
| How we compare | Teemly | HackerRank | CoderPad |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary use case | Teaching & assessment in education institutions | Technical hiring & developer assessment | Technical hiring & developer assessment |
| Organized around | Students, classes, subjects & cohorts | Candidates, roles, tests & hiring teams | Candidates, tests, recruiters & hiring teams |
| Academic class/cohort reporting | Yes | Hiring/test analytics | Hiring/test analytics |
| Paper + online academic record | Yes | Not documented as an academic workflow | Not documented as an academic workflow |
| Topic / learning-outcome reporting | Yes | Skills-based candidate analytics | Skills/technology-based candidate analytics |
| Coding test cases | Visible + hidden | Visible/sample + hidden | Visible + hidden |
| Integrity focus | Evidence reviewed in an academic workflow | Hiring integrity & candidate verification | Hiring integrity & candidate verification |
| Pricing model | Institution/student based | Subscription + candidate attempts | Subscription / volume based |
Book a demo