Why two designated ECA agencies can report the same credential differently — the answer is in their own published rules

Two people with what looks like the same qualification can send it to two different Canadian assessment agencies and get back two different statements. This is not a conspiracy and it is not a mistake in either report. It is what the published rules describe. The national framework all these agencies work under says, in its own words, that it “respects the autonomy of organizations” and is “not prescriptive”. Every agency then says its own policies govern its own outcomes.

This page summarises publicly available rules and their sources. It does not carry out or replace an assessment by any designated organisation, and it does not predict what any agency will report for any particular credential.

Who is actually designated, read today

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada publishes the list. As read on 3 September 2026, the page carries a Date modified of 22 June 2026 and names five organisations, with the date each was designated:

Organisation	Date designated
Comparative Education Service – University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies	April 17, 2013
International Credential Assessment Service of Canada	April 17, 2013
World Education Services	April 17, 2013
International Qualifications Assessment Service (IQAS)	August 6, 2015
International Credential Evaluation Service – British Columbia Institute of Technology	August 6, 2015

There is a second list on the same page, which most write-ups omit. Three designated professional bodies cover three occupations, and for those occupations they are not optional. IRCC’s wording is that if your primary occupation is as an architect, doctor or a pharmacist, “you must use a designated professional body based on your occupation”:

• Architects (NOC 21200) — the Canadian Architectural Certification Board, “professional body for architects designated on May 20, 2024”, where “you need a license to practise”.
• Specialists and family physicians (NOC 31100, NOC 31101 or NOC 31102) — the Medical Council of Canada, “a professional body for doctors designated on April 17, 2013”. IRCC says you must get an ECA report “for your primary medical diploma” from it.
• Pharmacists (NOC 31120) — the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada, “professional body for pharmacists designated on January 6, 2014”, again where “you need a license to practise”.

For architects and pharmacists IRCC adds the same carve-out: “If you’re in a position where you don’t need a license, one of the other designated organizations can assess your credentials.”

Check that list yourself before you pay anyone. Membership and designation dates have changed over the years, and third-party lists go stale.

What all of them share

The five general organisations sit inside the same national structure. CICIC — the pan-Canadian information centre run by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada — lists six members of the Alliance of Credential Evaluation Services of Canada (the five above, plus Quebec’s immigration ministry, which issues its own comparative evaluation). CICIC states that “All six members of the Alliance adhere to the Pan-Canadian Quality Assurance Framework for the Assessment of International Academic Credentials”.

Two agencies say so in their own terms. ICAS states that “All Assessment Reports issued by ICAS comply with the Pan-Canadian Quality Assurance Framework for the Assessment of International Academic Credentials (‘QAF’) and the Lisbon Recognition Convention (‘LRC’)”. CES states that its ECAs “comply with the procedural and substantive standards set out in the Pan-Canadian Quality Assurance Framework for the Assessment of International Academic Credentials”.

So far this sounds like a common standard that should produce common answers.

The sentence that explains the whole thing

CICIC’s own description of that framework is short and decisive:

“The QAF is a guiding-principle document… The QAF: respects the autonomy of organizations; and is not prescriptive.”

A guiding-principle document that is explicitly not prescriptive cannot force two organisations to reach the same conclusion, and it does not try to. What it standardises is process quality — how you authenticate documents, how you research an education system, how you document a decision — not the decision itself.

CICIC’s step-by-step guide for assessors makes the same point about where the judgement sits. Step 4.5 is “Determine whether there are any substantial differences”, described as: “Compare both perspectives, ensuring a fair comparability process and enabling you to form an opinion on the outcome.” Step 5.2 tells assessors to “Gather justification for your decision and record the new comparability assessment outcome in your information systems”, adding that “Continual review and updating of your policies and procedures ensures continued accuracy.”

Opinions, formed under each organisation’s own policies, which each organisation continually updates. That is the published design.

Each agency then says whose rules govern

Read the four English-language general organisations side by side and the differences are stated openly.

CES anchors its outcomes to its own committee: “ECAs are based upon established and current CES policies approved by the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies Comparative Education Service Management Committee.”

ICAS describes an internal Management Committee “responsible for providing program and policy direction and considering appeals”, plus “an extensive and up-to-date on-site research library and electronic database of international education systems and credentials”.

WES describes “a custom-built database containing over 50 years of research”, covering “knowledge of institutions in 203 countries and territories” and “60,000+ institutions”. It is a founding member of NACES in the United States and a member of ACESC in Canada.

IQAS is a provincial government service, and its methodology page is the most explicit of all: “IQAS assessments are based on standard methodology and not on an individual’s pattern of study.” Its published country guides are described as explaining “how international education credentials compare to Alberta education credentials and standards”, and the credential templates give “recommendations on how the credential compares to educational standards in Alberta”.

Four organisations, four bodies of internal policy, four in-house databases, one of them explicitly benchmarking to a single province. Nothing in the framework obliges those four to converge.

Differences that appear before anyone forms an opinion

A large share of “why did they say different things” is not disagreement about level at all. It is that the agencies do not accept the same inputs.

Minimum size of what is assessed. ICES states that a credential must be “at least comparable to one-year of full-time study”, and that it will “only provide ECA reports for fully completed academic credentials”.

Categories excluded. ICES publishes a list of what it “does not evaluate”: trade qualifications, military training, second language training, “professional licenses or titles such as a Chartered Accountant”, exam-based qualifications, apprenticeships, work or life experience, “continuing education courses taken at non-recognized institutions”, non-credit professional development, and incomplete or provisional credentials.

IQAS publishes its own, differently drawn list. It “does not assess” incomplete credentials, “anything below secondary or high school level”, “non-academic credentials”, “professional qualifications – for example, chartered accountant designation”, “vocational or trades training – for example, diesel mechanics program”, and “credentials obtained in Canada”.

ICAS excludes “professional registration or licensing examinations, in-service professional development, on-the-job training and work experience”, and adds one nobody expects: “ICAS does not provide assessments of graduate degrees in clinical medicine.”

CES draws the line by formality: its reports “include only educational credentials received through formal education completed at academic institutions. Non-formal and/or non-academic qualifications will not be assessed or included in the ECA report.”

If your qualification sits near one of those edges, the agencies are not weighing it differently — some of them are not weighing it at all.

Institution recognition. IQAS publishes a two-part test: it “only conducts assessments of education obtained at institutions that meet the following recognition criteria: The institution is formally approved by a designated competent authority within its own country as a quality institution. The institution is widely accepted by other institutions and agencies, both within and outside the country.” It also warns applicants that “There are some educational institutions that are not recognized/accepted by IQAS”, and that a warning may appear in the portal after you select your institution.

ICES publishes named lists of institutions it will not assess at all, and says the reasons “may include, but are not limited to, non-compliance, lack of quality measures, previous identification of sub-standard education, and institutions linked directly to fraudulent practices” — noting for one country that many listed institutions “may still hold University Grants Commission (UGC) of India recognition, but have been included in this listing”.

WES reserves the same power without publishing a list: “WES reserves the right not to evaluate documents from certain institutions in its sole and absolute discretion.”

CES reserves the outcome instead: “In cases where the credential is found not to be recognized by the competent educational authorities of its country of origin, or if there are substantial differences between it and an otherwise similar Canadian credential, CES reserves the right to provide an assessment with a negative outcome.”

Which national authority is treated as the source of truth. For one country, ICES states that it “can only evaluate credentials that are specified by the University Grants Commission (UGC)” and that “we strictly adhere to the Association of Indian Universities (AIU) authority”. Another agency is free to read the same national framework through its own research. That is an ordinary, documented reason for two reports to differ.

The comparison criteria themselves are worded differently

IQAS publishes four checks: “level of education, duration of study, general content of study, function of program”.

The Lisbon Recognition Convention — ratified by Canada on 13 June 2018 and legally binding from 1 August 2018 — frames the same question as “substantial difference”, which CICIC says “may involve” the quality-assurance practices of the programme or institution, learning outcomes, and “the function of the qualification, such as providing access to further studies, research, and/or employment”. Two further points from that page are worth knowing: recognition “should be granted unless a substantial difference can be demonstrated”, and “The burden of proof lies with the organization responsible for recognition of the credential and/or qualification, and not with the individual”.

Same family of criteria, different words, applied by different people under different internal policies.

Even an agency’s own published table is not a prediction

IQAS’s International Education Guides are the closest thing in Canada to a public comparison table. Its own terms say what they are not:

“These are not official IQAS assessments. The recommendations in these guides are for your information only. The credential comparisons represent common educational patterns within each country. They do not take into account the recognition status of the institution through which a credential was obtained, the authenticity of the documentation, or the particular pattern of education followed by an individual.”

If the body that publishes the table says the table does not account for your institution or your pattern of study, no third party — including this site — is in a position to tell you what your report will say.

What none of the reports decide

CICIC, on all six Alliance members: “Although assessment services offer expert advice on how qualifications obtained outside Canada compare with those obtained in Canada, their assessments are advisory only.” It adds that they do not guarantee recognition for admission, for “certification, licensing, or registration in an occupation”, or for general employment.

The agencies repeat it. WES: “The evaluation reports provided by WES are advisory in nature and are not binding upon any institution or agency. Only the receiving institution can determine whether the applicant meets their requirements for admission or credit transfer.” ICAS: reports “are advisory in nature and are not binding on any employer, educational institution, organization or other third party” and “do not replace or override assessments required by regulatory bodies, professional associations, educational institutions or other organizations.” CES: reports “are advisory in nature and do not in any way comment on or guarantee your eligibility or qualifications for employment, certification, or professional licensure.”

IQAS is blunt about the immigration side specifically: an IQAS ECA “does not mean that your credentials are recognized for licensure in Canada”, “does not guarantee a job or successful immigration application”, and “IQAS cannot provide information on eligibility for IRCC points or IRCC application requirements and decisions.”

IRCC’s own page agrees that the report is not a guarantee: it “doesn’t guarantee that… you’ll get a job in your field, or at a certain level” or that “you’ll get a license to practice in a regulated profession”.

If you disagree with an outcome

Every agency we could read publishes a route, and they are not the same route.

• CES: report an error within 30 days of issue. For disagreement with the outcome, a review by the assessor and/or peer reviewers, with a response within 5 business days; then an official appeal in writing within 90 days of the report date, fee $199 CAD, decided by an Appeal Panel within 20 business days. CES states “this review process is exhaustive, and its decisions are final”, and that a successful appeal means a revised report and a refunded fee.
• IQAS: one reassessment request per application, $200 CAD, reviewed “by an IQAS assessor who was not involved in the original decision”, decided “based on IQAS policy and guidelines”, with an emailed decision within 30 business days. The fee is “automatically refunded only if the reassessment results in a change from the original assessment decision.”
• ICAS: “If you identify an error in the Assessment Report, you must notify ICAS within 30 days of the issuance of the Report.” Its Management Committee is described as “considering appeals”.
• WES: we did not find a published review or appeal policy on the WES pages we were able to open on 3 September 2026. Its Terms and Conditions do state that “WES reserves the right to refuse to prepare an evaluation report for any reason, in its sole and absolute discretion.”

Fees and timelines: what we could read today, and what we could not

Third-party comparisons of these numbers contradict each other, so here is only what we read on each body’s own page on 3 September 2026. These change; check the page before you pay.

• IQAS: application fee $260 CAD for one credential, “$100 per credential” for each additional credential in the same application, administration fee $25, courier $25 within Canada or $90 international, optional rush service $250. “ECA assessments take about 15 business days”; rush processing is “5 to 7 business days”. All fees non-refundable.
• ICES: “$200 CAD per educational credential” for a new ECA, $150 per credential to update a pre-existing general evaluation, $20 per extra report, $50 for a PDF via QR code, $50 for renewal after the five years expire, courier $26 within Canada or $75 US/international. “The current estimated processing timeline for an ECA is 7 weeks.” ICES states it “does not offer any type of rush or expedited service”.
• CES: the front page states “Our current average processing time is 60 business days.” Delivery options are listed as $21 for an optional certified electronic copy, $65 for courier within Canada and continental USA, and $83 for international courier. The appeal fee is $199.
• WES: we could not read a current ECA fee or a current ECA processing time. The processing-times page requires selecting a report type in a control that did not render a figure for us, so we are not publishing a number.
• ICAS: we could not read a current ECA fee or processing time. The site’s own news panel carried an item headed “Fee Increases (September 1)”, which is another reason not to reproduce a figure from anywhere else.

IRCC states the obvious consequence: “Processing times and costs may vary by organization or professional body.”

What to do with this

1. Start from the receiving body, not the agency. Work out who has to accept the report — an employer, a university, a provincial regulator, or IRCC — and read that body’s own requirement first. WES, ICAS, CES and CICIC all say in writing that the receiving body decides.
2. Read the agency’s exclusion list before you pay. If your qualification is a professional designation, a trade certificate, an exam-based award, work experience, or an incomplete programme, at least three of the five say plainly that they will not assess it.
3. Check whether your institution appears on a published restriction list, and whether the agency requires documents from an awarding body rather than the institution you attended.
4. Know the review route and its cost and deadline before you receive the report, because two of the deadlines start running from the date of issue.
5. Do not treat a forum thread as evidence. Threads reliably show that people are asking this question. They do not establish what any agency’s policy is, and none of the claims on this page rest on one.

We do not tell readers which agency to use, and we do not predict any outcome. Both of those questions belong to the agencies and, where immigration is involved, to authorised representatives — paid immigration advice in Canada is a licensed activity. Everything above is quoted from the official pages listed in the sources, read on 3 September 2026.