LTI 1.1 vs LTI 1.3: What's the Difference and Which Does Your LMS Support?

Where The Version Gap Matters

If you are comparing LTI 1.1 vs LTI 1.3, the first thing to understand is that both versions connect an LMS to an external learning tool, but they do it with very different security and service models. According to 1EdTech’s LTI overview, LTI is a standard for launching tools from within a learning environment without requiring a separate login flow for each tool. That basic idea did not change. What changed is how trust, authentication, and data exchange are handled.

LTI 1.1 relies on an older launch model based on OAuth 1.0a and shared secrets. In practice, that means the LMS and the tool both depend on the same secret for trust. LTI 1.3 moves to the 1EdTech Security Framework, which uses OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect, and JSON Web Tokens. That shift is not just a technical refresh. It changes how platforms validate identity, sign launch messages, and reduce the exposure that comes with shared credentials.

LTI 1.1 Vs LTI 1.3

The most visible differences usually fall into three areas:

• Security model
• Available services
• LMS and vendor support

With LTI 1.1, you can still launch content and tools successfully in many legacy LMS environments. That is why it remains present in the market. Some platforms, older client environments, and long-running enterprise implementations still depend on it. For training providers distributing content to many customers, this matters because compatibility often decides whether a rollout happens smoothly or stalls in procurement and IT review.

LTI 1.3, however, is the current standard. 1EdTech states that legacy LTI versions are deprecated for certification and support, and recommends adopting LTI 1.3 and LTI Advantage. LTI Advantage adds a set of standard services on top of the core launch model, including Assignment and Grade Services, Names and Role Provisioning Services, and Deep Linking. These services make the integration more useful operationally, not just more modern technically.

Security And Privacy Changes

For LMS administrators and platform operators, the biggest reason to prefer LTI 1.3 is security. The deprecation notice explains that the newer framework aligns with current best practices and addresses known risks such as CSRF more effectively. 1EdTech’s explanation of why to adopt LTI 1.3 also makes clear that the change was driven by concerns about trusted exchange of student data and personally identifiable information.

This matters if your organisation handles customer-owned learner records, regulated training, or large-scale B2B delivery. If you are still supporting LTI 1.1, you should treat it as a compatibility layer, not as your preferred target architecture.

Service Layer Differences

LTI 1.1 is mainly about launching. LTI 1.3, especially with LTI Advantage, supports richer workflows. For example, grade return is more standardised through AGS, and roster-related information can be shared through NRPS. That creates more predictable integrations across LMS platforms that implement the services properly.

In practical terms, this means you can move beyond “open this external content” toward “launch, identify the learner, understand their role, place the right resource, and send results back consistently.” If you are distributing courses across multiple client LMSs, that makes support and reporting easier to scale. It is also why many teams reviewing LTI integration challenges end up focusing less on launch alone and more on what happens after launch.

How To Check LMS Support

The next question is whether your LMS supports LTI 1.1, LTI 1.3, or both. Do not assume based on marketing pages alone. Check four things:

• Whether the LMS acts as an LTI tool consumer or platform
• Whether it supports only core LTI 1.3 launch, or also LTI Advantage services
• Whether 1.1 and 1.3 can run in parallel
• How the LMS handles registration, deployment IDs, and key management

Some systems support both versions at the same time, often to help with migration. Others advertise LTI 1.3 support but only implement the launch, not AGS, NRPS, or Deep Linking. That distinction is important when you are designing enrolment sync, grade passback, or content selection flows. Documentation such as Moodle’s LTI tool publishing guidance and platform-specific help pages can clarify what is actually implemented.

For course vendors and content distributors, flexibility is often the safest approach. In practice, mixed customer environments are common. A provider may have one client on a modern LMS with full 1.3 support, another on an older platform that still requires 1.1, and a third deciding between content distribution via LTI, SCORM, or API. That is why dual-version support can be strategically useful during transition periods.

Migration And Operational Planning

If your LMS supports LTI 1.3, your default recommendation should usually be to implement that version first. Keep LTI 1.1 only where customer constraints require it. A sensible migration plan includes documenting current integrations, testing launch behaviour, validating role mappings, checking grade return, and confirming whether the LMS supports the specific Advantage services you need.

Migration is rarely just a matter of replacing one protocol with another. Registration flows are different, key management is different, and support teams often need new troubleshooting procedures. In LTI 1.1, many issues revolve around shared secret mismatches and launch parameter handling. In LTI 1.3, teams are more likely to investigate issuer values, client IDs, deployment IDs, public keys, token validation, and service scopes. That means implementation teams should update both technical documentation and operational runbooks before rolling out at scale.

It is also worth separating “supports LTI 1.3” from “supports your use case in LTI 1.3.” A platform may support secure launch but not the grade workflows or roster access your product depends on. Another may support Deep Linking but require a specific admin setup process that slows deployment. During evaluation, test the full learner and administrator journey rather than only the initial launch. That includes content selection, user identification, role mapping, result return, and any reporting dependencies.

Treat LTI 1.3 as the default path for new integrations, and treat LTI 1.1 as a managed compatibility option for customers who cannot yet move.

In environments where you publish learning content centrally to external platforms, it helps to use infrastructure that can serve both old and new standards while keeping administration and reporting in one place. That approach is particularly relevant when your LTI provider supports both LTI 1.1 and LTI 1.3, allowing you to continue serving legacy LMS environments while shifting new deployments toward the newer model. It also aligns with the broader advice in What Is LTI and upgrading from LTI 1.1 to LTI 1.3, where the operational challenge is not only technical conversion, but managing compatibility across your customer base.

For most organisations, the decision is not whether LTI 1.3 is better. The decision is how quickly they can adopt it without disrupting existing customers. If you are planning for long-term maintainability, stronger security, and more consistent service support, LTI 1.3 should be the direction of travel. If you are planning for real-world delivery across varied LMS estates, you may still need LTI 1.1 in parallel for a period. The version gap matters because it affects not only compliance with current standards, but also how efficiently you can launch, support, and scale learning integrations over time.

Take Aways

Audit your current LMS integrations now so you can decide where to prioritise LTI 1.3 and where you still need LTI 1.1 for compatibility. A clear review of your existing setup helps you avoid assumptions and plan upgrades with better visibility.

• Check each LMS you work with for actual support of core LTI 1.3 and any LTI Advantage services you rely on, rather than assuming full support from product pages.
• Treat LTI 1.1 as a fallback for legacy customer environments, not as your default architecture for new deployments.
• Test more than launch behaviour by validating role mapping, grade passback, deep linking, and roster data flows before rollout.
• Document which clients, platforms, and use cases still require dual-version support so your migration planning stays realistic and controlled.
• Align your integration roadmap with security, reporting, and operational needs so your team can reduce support complexity over time.

If you map your current version gaps clearly, you will be in a stronger position to plan upgrades, support customers confidently, and scale delivery with fewer integration issues.