Human Led Remote Proctoring vs. AI Proctoring: Best for Secure Exams

The rise of remote proctoring has transformed the way exams are conducted, offering flexibility and accessibility like never before. However, not all remote proctoring systems are created equal. When choosing between AI-driven automated proctoring and human-led proctoring, understanding the core differences is critical.

Here, we explore ten key insights that reveal why human-led remote proctoring is the preferred approach when it comes to exam integrity, candidate experience, and cost-effectiveness.

1. The Fundamental Difference: AI vs. Human-Led Proctoring

There are two primary approaches to remote proctoring:

AI Proctoring (Automated Proctoring): Relies on sound, motion, and behaviour detection to flag potential cheating. While some systems allow post-exam video review, real-time intervention is minimal or absent.
Human-Led Proctoring: Involves live proctors supervising exams with the support of technology. Proctors can intervene in real-time, investigate suspicious activity, and ensure compliance with exam rules.

Although both systems serve the same purpose, human-led proctoring provides a far higher level of security and fairness.

2. Effectiveness at Detecting Cheating: AI Falls Short

AI-based proctoring relies on preset movement and noise thresholds to detect cheating. However:

Cheaters rarely behave in obvious ways that AI can detect, like making loud noises or exaggerated movements.
If the AI sensitivity is too high, false positives skyrocket—flagging innocent behaviour such as stretching or glancing away.
Post-exam video review is ineffective, as it’s difficult to prove intent after the fact.

Human-led proctoring eliminates these weaknesses by allowing proctors to interact with candidates in real time. If suspicious behaviour is detected, the proctor can ask the candidate to show their surroundings or clarify their actions immediately.

3. AI Struggles with Video and Image Recognition

AI technology is often overhyped in proctoring. Despite advances in image processing, AI still struggles with distinguishing complex visual cues, as seen in the famous “Chihuahua vs. Muffin” test, where top AI systems misidentified dogs as baked goods.

If AI struggles with simple images, how can we expect it to accurately detect nuanced cheating behaviour in real-time exam footage? Human oversight is essential.

4. Live Proctors Prevent Exam Content Theft

AI proctoring flags potential misconduct, but it does little to prevent it in real time. A test-taker could:

Copy exam questions onto paper and distribute them online.
Use hidden earpieces to receive answers.
Look off-screen for reference material without making detectable movements.

Human-led proctors stop misconduct as it happens, ensuring that exam content remains protected.

5. Candidate Experience: AI vs. Human Support

Exams are already stressful—technical issues or unclear rules can create panic. AI proctoring provides little if any real-time assistance, meaning:

Candidates with accessibility needs struggle without immediate human support.
If technical problems occur, candidates are often left without recourse.
AI-driven proctoring can feel impersonal and rigid, making candidates more anxious.

With human-led proctoring, test-takers can speak to a real person, ask for clarification, and feel supported throughout the process.

6. AI Proctoring Increases Support Burden for Exam Providers

AI proctoring is often marketed as a “hands-off” solution for exam bodies, but in reality, it creates more work.

When candidates encounter problems during an AI-proctored exam, they often turn to the exam provider for support.
Many issues go unresolved in real-time, leading to complaints and exam disruptions.
This increases the workload for exam teams, requiring additional staffing to handle queries and disputes.

With human-led proctoring, issues are handled immediately by the proctor, reducing the administrative burden on the exam provider.

7. AI Proctoring Is Not Fully Compliant with Regulatory Standards

Many regulatory bodies have raised concerns about AI-only proctoring.

For example, Ofqual, the UK’s exam regulator, stated that AI alone is “unlikely to be compliant” with its regulations. This is because AI lacks the human judgment necessary to make fair decisions in ambiguous situations. To meet compliance standards, a hybrid approach with human oversight is often necessary.

8. AI Proctoring Is Not Always Cheaper

A common misconception is that AI proctoring is cheaper than human-led alternatives. However:

AI systems require extensive post-exam video reviews, adding labour costs.
False positives result in more appeals and administrative work.
Poor candidate experience leads to higher dropout rates and rescheduling costs.

Today’s human-led proctoring services offer scalable options to match exam stakes. For instance, low-stakes exams can have a 1:12 proctor ratio, while high-stakes exams use 1:4 or 1:2 supervision. This flexibility makes human-led proctoring competitive on cost while delivering superior security and support.

9. Human-Led Proctoring Is Just as Scalable as AI

Some believe AI proctoring can be deployed “in minutes”, while human-led solutions take longer. This is not true.

Most professional proctoring services have streamlined onboarding processes to efficiently set up human-led proctoring at scale. There is no real difference in rollout time between AI and human-led options.

In fact, some exam providers find that human-led proctoring results in smoother deployment because of better candidate support and fewer post-exam disputes.

10. The Best Approach: Combining Human Oversight with Technology

The most effective proctoring system is one that blends human expertise with AI assistance.

A hybrid approach, like the one offered by TestReach, uses technology to flag suspicious activity while keeping a live human proctor in control. This ensures real-time intervention, prevents cheating, improves candidate experience, and meets compliance standards.

Final Thoughts: Why Human-Led Proctoring Wins

When it comes to exam integrity, candidate support, and regulatory compliance, human-led proctoring is the preferred choice. While AI proctoring may serve as a deterrent, it is not a reliable method to catch or prevent cheating. If you’re looking for a secure, scalable, and cost-effective remote proctoring solution, human-led proctoring is by far more reliable and meets the requirements for accrediting bodies.

As an all-in-one test management system including both assessment software and live remote proctoring, using in-house proctors, TestReach ensures reliable, fair, and secure exams.

If you’re interested to learn more, contact TestReach today to see how we can support your exam delivery needs.

Download this Guide to Online Proctoring for more information.

Read more about the Quality of Remote Proctoring here.