OPM vs in-house program development costs
Are you in the answers when your customers ask AI?
Enter your prompt and find out which brands dominate AI search results.
AI Search Engine Responses
Compare how different AI search engines respond to this query
ChatGPT
BRAND (4)
SUMMARY
ChatGPT provides an educational overview of OPM versus in-house program development costs, citing specific research from Burning Glass Industries that indicates in-house program development can cost upwards of $500,000. The response focuses on initial investment requirements and operational costs, emphasizing the capital-intensive nature of establishing new programs internally, including expenses for faculty hiring, instructional designers, and technology infrastructure.
REFERENCES (5)
Perplexity
BRAND (4)
SUMMARY
Perplexity delivers a comprehensive analytical comparison highlighting the fundamental trade-off between OPM and in-house development. It emphasizes that OPMs require lower upfront costs but demand 50-70% revenue sharing long-term, while in-house development involves higher initial investment exceeding $500,000 but retains full tuition revenue control. The response provides detailed cost structure analysis and opportunity cost considerations.
REFERENCES (16)
Google AIO
BRAND (4)
SUMMARY
Google AIO presents a balanced comparative analysis focusing on the core trade-off between upfront capital requirements and long-term financial control. It explains that OPMs require minimal upfront investment in exchange for significant future tuition revenue sharing, while in-house development demands substantial initial investment but provides long-term control and financial returns. The response emphasizes strategic decision factors beyond just cost considerations.
REFERENCES (13)
Strategic Insights & Recommendations
Dominant Brand
Burning Glass Industries is the primary research source cited, specifically mentioned by ChatGPT for their $500,000 cost estimate for in-house program development.
Platform Gap
ChatGPT focuses on educational cost breakdowns, Perplexity provides detailed analytical comparisons with specific revenue sharing percentages, while Google AIO emphasizes strategic decision-making factors.
Link Opportunity
Perplexity provides the most comprehensive linking with 16 sources, followed by Google AIO with 13 links, while ChatGPT offers 5 links, suggesting opportunities for more extensive source citation.
Key Takeaways for This Prompt
All platforms agree that OPMs offer lower upfront costs but require significant long-term revenue sharing (50-70% of tuition).
In-house development consistently cited as requiring $500,000+ initial investment across platforms.
Perplexity provides the most detailed financial analysis with specific percentage ranges and opportunity cost considerations.
The decision involves balancing immediate financial capacity against long-term control and revenue retention.
Share Report
Share this AI visibility analysis report with others through social media