Head to head
Cred Farmer vs CCAF-exam.guide: which should you use?
Cred Farmer scores higher under every reader profile published here, but CCAF-exam.guide still wins on specific criteria listed below.
Cred Farmer publishes this comparison and is one of the two platforms in it. Every figure below links to CCAF-exam.guide's own page and carries the date we read it. The verdict is computed from published weightings, not written by us.
- Wrong exam fee, stated flatly. The site publishes "Cost is $99 per attempt"; the exam guide in force (Version 1.0, effective July 2026) publishes "Exam fee $125 USD". The surrounding paragraph is hedged as reported by secondary sources, but the figure is stated without qualification and repeated in the site's comparison table.
- Wrong item format, published under a heading that claims the exam guide as its source. Under "Source material (from official guide)" the site states: "Question format. Multiple choice, one correct answer plus three distractors. There is no penalty for guessing; unanswered questions are scored as incorrect." The guide's item-format row reads "Multiple-choice and multiple-response items; each item states how many responses to select", and the guide says nothing about a guessing penalty. A candidate drilling only four-option single-answer items will not have practised a multiple-response item — though every sample question the guide itself publishes is four-option and single-correct, so the gap is narrower than it first appears.
- The exam code is published incorrectly in every mention. The site labels the credential "CCA-F" — "Practice for the CCA-F exam, with Claude as your proctor." — while the guide gives the code CCAR-F, which appears nowhere on the site. The credential named is the same one, but a reader searching under the site's label will not find the exam guide or the registration listing.
Who wins, by what you need
Each row is that profile's published weighting applied to both platforms' criterion scores. Nothing here is hand-assigned — change the weights and the winners change.
| If you say… | Cred Farmer | CCAF-exam.guide | Better fit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced overall | 82 | 49 | Cred Farmer |
| I want one system for all four exams | 84 | 50 | Cred Farmer |
| I only need one exam | 83 | 52 | Cred Farmer |
| I want the best free option | 83 | 68 | Cred Farmer |
| I learn from video or an instructor | 48 | 34 | Cred Farmer |
| My exam is in two weeks | 91 | 52 | Cred Farmer |
| I am preparing a team | 64 | 39 | Cred Farmer |
What each one is better at
Where CCAF-exam.guide is stronger
- Provenance and disclosure are handled better here than on most prep sites: a named author with a LinkedIn link, an MIT licence, an unaffiliated disclaimer in the footer of every page, and a references list at the end of the exam-overview section naming each secondary source behind every enriched claim.
- The blueprint it publishes is exactly right — 27/18/20/20/15 across the five domains, 60 items, 120 minutes, a 720 pass mark on a 100-1,000 scale, and four scenarios drawn from a bank of six all match the exam guide in force.
- The full-mock mode makes a serious attempt at exam conditions: 60 questions across four of the six scenarios drawn at random, per-question rationales withheld until the end, and a scaled-score estimate reported against the real 720 cut — with an explicit caveat in the proctor instructions that it is an estimate and not a true scaled score.
- The study prose is wired directly to ten of the twelve sample questions the exam guide publishes, by number, with the reasoning made explicit — a genuinely useful bridge from reading to scored items.
- Access has no friction at all: no account, no email capture, no forms in the homepage HTML, no paywall, and all twelve sections readable anonymously, with pull requests and corrections invited.
- It is genuinely multilingual rather than a stub — English, Español, Français and Русский each return real translated section content and a full sitemap of their own.
- The architecture is a real idea, well executed: sections are sized so Claude reads exactly one per drill round, and the same markdown files drive both the website and the mock exam, so the two cannot drift apart.
- It advertises no leaked or recalled exam content, carries no testimonials or reviews of any kind, makes no partner claim, and attributes the sample questions it discusses to Anthropic.
- Evidence and transparency: scores 5/5 against our 4/5.
- Value and access: scores 5/5 against our 4/5.
Where Cred Farmer is stronger
- Retention system: we score 5/5 against their 0/5.
- Certification coverage: we score 5/5 against their 2/5.
- Practice depth: we score 4/5 against their 2/5.
- Mock-exam realism: we score 5/5 against their 3/5.
- Diagnostics and personalisation: we score 5/5 against their 3/5.
- Structured learning: we score 4/5 against their 3/5.
Feature by feature
Expand any cell to see the words we read and where we read them. If a link no longer says what we quote, the figure is out of date and we want to know.
| Cred Farmer | CCAF-exam.guide | |
|---|---|---|
| Certifications covered | All four: CCAO-F, CCDV-F, CCAR-F and CCAR-P, in one account, with a study guide, question bank, mocks and flashcards for each.Evidence“Study guides mapped to every domain, four full mock exams per certification, spaced-repetition flashcards, and a readiness score that tracks you per domain.” | One certification only: Claude Certified Architect — Foundations, which the site labels "CCA-F" in every mention of the code. The exam guide in force gives this credential the code CCAR-F; the site never uses that code anywhere. No other Claude credential is covered.Evidence“Practice for the CCA-F exam, with Claude as your proctor.” |
| Practice questions | 1,180 across the four banks — 300 CCAO-F, 265 CCDV-F, 300 CCAR-F, 315 CCAR-P. Roughly 300 per exam, which is mid-table here rather than the deepest bank.Evidence“1,180 Practice questions” | Not published |
| Study material | 119 study sections mapped to the published exam objectives, plus ten written hands-on labs and a 120-card rapid-recall deck per certification. Written material only — no video and no instructor.Evidence“119 Study sections” | Twelve study sections covering every domain on the exam, each published as a browsable page and mirrored into English, Español, Français and Русский. The same markdown files are the single source for both the website and the Claude mock exam. Section 01 is stamped "Last updated on May 20, 2026"; the other eleven sections, the docs index and the About page carry May 15, 2026.Evidence“Twelve study sections ( sections/01..12.md ) covering every domain on the exam. The same files power both Claude’s mock exam and this website.” |
| Full-length timed mocks | 20 full-length timed papers — five per certification, each at the real exam's item count and 120-minute clock (60 / 53 / 60 / 63 items). Four are scenario mock exams and the fifth is an objective mastery challenge at the same length. Note our own pages count these differently: /certifications says "four full mock exams per certification", which counts the mocks and not the mastery paper.Evidence“20 Timed mock exams” | Yes, but only inside Claude Code or Cursor after cloning the public repository — there is no exam in the browser. The site describes a CLAUDE.md file that puts Claude into a proctored mock mode; the repository it links documents three modes, including a full mock of 60 questions drawn across four of the six published scenarios, around two hours, with rationales held back until the end and a scaled-score estimate reported against the real 720 pass mark, caveated there as an estimate rather than a true scaled score.Evidence“A CLAUDE.md file that puts Claude into Mock Exam Mode — a section-by-section quiz proctor that generates questions in the official format, waits for your answer, then explains why each option is right or wrong.” |
| Flashcards | Yes — a 120-card rapid-recall deck per certification, served through a spaced-repetition drill rather than as a static list.Evidence“Flashcard drills resurface each concept right before you'd forget it.” | Not published |
| Spaced repetition | Yes — an SM-2 scheduler, scheduling each card individually from a four-way rating, with lapses requeued inside the same session.Evidence“Study guides mapped to every domain, four full mock exams per certification, spaced-repetition flashcards, and a readiness score that tracks you per domain.” | Not published |
| Diagnostics | Objective-level mastery tracking with weak-domain routing: a missed question feeds a targeted drill by objective, by domain, or from your own misses, ordered confidently-wrong first.Evidence“Study guides mapped to every domain, four full mock exams per certification, spaced-repetition flashcards, and a readiness score that tracks you per domain.” | Per-question feedback during a Claude Code session — the proctor "explains why each option is right or wrong". The linked repository's proctor instructions add a per-domain tally and a list of missed concepts naming the section to re-read, but that state is held only for the session, and the website itself carries no diagnostic feature.Evidence“A CLAUDE.md file that puts Claude into Mock Exam Mode — a section-by-section quiz proctor that generates questions in the official format, waits for your answer, then explains why each option is right or wrong.” |
| Readiness / adaptive path | A per-certification readiness score. Performance is 60% and preparation 40%, but an evidence gate caps the total: if your mock scores sit below the pass mark, preparation cannot lift you past "almost ready" however much you read. Only the first sitting of each distinct paper counts, drills and self-rated confidence are excluded, and a study section is only marked complete when you answer its checkpoint questions correctly — there is no "mark as complete" button.Evidence“Our readiness engine calculates a precise, real-time score based on your study history and mock test performance.” | Not published |
| Free tier | Everything is free during open beta — all four certifications, every study section, every mock and every drill. An account is required.Evidence“Right now, Cred Farmer is completely free while we are in open beta.” | Everything is free and there is no paid tier. Site and repository are MIT-licensed open source, all twelve study sections are readable anonymously, and corrections are invited as pull requests.Evidence“The repo and site are open source under the MIT License . Pull requests, corrections, and additional questions are welcome.” |
| Price | $0 while in open beta. No paid tier is published, and no pricing is announced for after the beta.Evidence“Free while in open beta.” | Not published |
| Account required | Yes for study, practice and mocks — a free account via Google or GitHub sign-in. The blog, the certification guides and this comparison are open with no account.Evidence“To maximize security, we only use OAuth (Google and GitHub).” | No. There is no account, login, registration or email capture anywhere on the site; every study section is readable anonymously, and the only access step for the mock exam is cloning a public repository locally.Evidence“git clone https://github.com/ai-1st/claude-certified-architect.git” |
| Team support | Not published | Not published |
| States independence from Anthropic | Yes — stated in the footer of every page and repeated on the certification pages.Evidence“Not affiliated with, or endorsed by, Anthropic or Pearson VUE.” | Explicit and repeated: a disclaimer block on the homepage, a status line on the About page, and an unaffiliated notice in the footer of every page. The author is named with a LinkedIn link, and the About page credits Anthropic as the owner of the exam material.Evidence“Unofficial. Not affiliated with or endorsed by Anthropic. The exam, its content domains, scenarios, and scoring are Anthropic’s. The study sections in this repo are an independent re-statement of publicly-available material, organized for context-efficient practice with Claude.” |
Which to choose
Choose CCAF-exam.guide if…
- You are not willing to create an account. Every section here is readable anonymously with no login and no email capture; Cred Farmer is free but requires a Google or GitHub sign-in before you can practise.
- You already work in Claude Code or Cursor and would rather have questions generated inside your own editor than sit in a web app — the entire product is a git clone and a CLAUDE.md file.
- You want the syllabus in Spanish, French or Russian. Their four locales carry real translated section content; Cred Farmer's material is English only.
- You want to read, fork or fix the source. The site and repository are MIT-licensed and corrections are invited as pull requests, so you can adapt the material or correct an error yourself; Cred Farmer's content is not open for you to edit.
- You want an endless supply of freshly generated questions rather than a fixed bank you will eventually recognise by sight.
Choose Cred Farmer if…
- You expect to sit more than one Claude certification and would rather not rebuild your study setup for each.
- You have booked an exam and want an honest read on whether you would pass, from a score that will not flatter you for reading more.
- You want spaced repetition and objective-level weak-area routing without paying for them.
- You want the full preparation loop — study, timed mocks, retention and diagnosis — in one place rather than assembled from three free sites.
What CCAF-exam.guide does not offer
- No practice is possible in a browser — every answerable question requires installing Claude Code or Cursor and cloning a git repository locally, and there is no mobile path.
- No question bank is published: questions are generated at run time, so there is no versioned, reviewable set of items and no published count.
- No flashcards anywhere on the site or in the linked repository.
- No spaced repetition and no scheduled review of any kind.
- No persisted progress — scoring state is scoped to a single Claude Code session, so nothing carries across sittings and no longitudinal readiness score can exist.
- No performance-adaptive selection: drill sections are drawn by blueprint weight, never by which questions the candidate got wrong.
- No accounts, and therefore no team, cohort, admin, seat-management or progress-reporting features.
- Single-certification scope — only Claude Certified Architect — Foundations; no coverage of any other Claude credential.
- Section pages carry "Last updated" stamps from May 2026 and the linked repository was last pushed in June 2026, both before the version of the exam guide that took effect in July 2026.
Observable gaps in what the site publishes, not judgements about quality. We have run no blind review of anyone's questions, including our own, so nothing here compares how good the content is — only what each platform offers.
Sources
- https://ccaf-exam.guide/ — Homepage: unaffiliated disclaimer, MIT/open-source line, the twelve-section description, the Mock Exam Mode description, and the git clone access path.
- https://ccaf-exam.guide/about/ — About page: MIT licence, the pull-request correction route, named author, and the credit to Anthropic for the exam material.
- https://ccaf-exam.guide/docs/ — Docs index listing all twelve study sections, with the May 2026 update stamp.
- https://ccaf-exam.guide/docs/01-exam-overview/ — Exam overview: domain weights, item count, time limit and pass mark, the $99 fee and item-format statements, and the references list attributing enriched claims.
All read on 3 September 2026. Found something wrong? Email hello@credfarmer.com and it will be corrected.
Common questions
Is CCAF-exam.guide better than Cred Farmer?
Cred Farmer scores higher under every reader profile published here, but CCAF-exam.guide still wins on specific criteria listed below. Under the balanced weighting, CCAF-exam.guide scores 49 and Cred Farmer scores 82 out of 100. The weightings are published and adjustable, so the honest answer depends on which exam you are sitting and what you can spend.
Is this comparison independent?
No. Cred Farmer publishes it and is one of the two platforms in it. That is why the rubric is published, every figure links to CCAF-exam.guide's own pages with the date it was checked, and the verdict above is computed from those published weightings rather than written by us.
Is CCAF-exam.guide an official Anthropic product?
No. Neither is Cred Farmer. Anthropic publishes the exam guides and Pearson VUE delivers the exams; every platform in this comparison is independent of both.
How current are these figures?
Everything here was read on CCAF-exam.guide's own site on 3 September 2026. Prices, question counts and free tiers change without notice — follow the source links before you rely on a figure, and email hello@credfarmer.com if you find one out of date.
Other comparisons
Not affiliated with, or endorsed by, Anthropic or Pearson VUE.