Too many entrants in the credentialing and assessments space make the same mistake. They build for the test-taker: smoother UX, faster scoring, cheaper fees. And then they wonder why growth stalls.

The credentials or tests that dominate don’t win because of who takes them.

They win because of who accepts them.

The order matters.

Acceptance drives adoption, not the other way around.

Every market in credentials and assessments runs on this same asymmetry:

In other words, these markets aren’t driven by consumer demand; they are controlled by gatekeepers. And that’s where most entrants lose the plot: they chase convenience features for users instead of legitimacy signals for institutions.

The core truth: In credential markets, legitimacy is the real currency. And legitimacy lives with those who hold the power to say “we accept this.”

Over the past two decades advising assessment providers, universities, and workforce bodies, I’ve seen this mistake repeat itself. Product teams jump straight to the user experience while the institutions they depend on are still debating policy, data standards, and fairness frameworks. The result is predictable: strong technology, weak adoption.

For decades, TOEFL was the default assessment that every international applicant to the U.S. took, because every major U.S. university required it. It was the gold standard because it was the only standard.

Then IELTS broke the monopoly, by getting U.S. institutions to accept it. IELTS went directly to admissions offices. The pitch to institutions wasn’t about UX or design; it was about reliability, scoring validity, and comparability. The pitch to students wasn’t “this is easier” or “more convenient” it was “this is trusted by institutions.”

It started by understanding what admissions officers actually valued: predictable scoring, transparent data pipelines, and an assurance that the test wouldn’t expose them to fraud or fairness complaints. In institutional markets, the perceived risk of acceptance often outweighs the potential benefit of innovation. That’s the calculus many entrants overlook.

IELTS’s objective was to break TOEFL’s monopoly in the U.S. (IELTS was already the default assessment in the U.K. and Commonwealth countries). Once a few top schools announced they would accept it, everyone else followed. The signal was: if elite universities say IELTS is legitimate, other schools could safely follow suit.

By the time TOEFL executives noticed, the test-taker market had already moved. Widely accepted in the U.K. and now in the U.S. as well, IELTS rapidly gained market share amongst prospective students who wanted to keep their country of destination options open.

IELTS cracked TOEFL’s monopoly, and the Duolingo English Test (DET) blew the door off its hinges.

When it launched, DET looked like a toy: an app-based test from a language-learning company best known for its cartoon owl. Executives within IELTS and TOEFL dismissed it as unserious; unworthy of being a competitor. But Duolingo followed the same playbook IELTS had proven: start with institutional acceptance.