Reading time: 15 minutes
Alternatives to PDFs for internal training in companies
Every week, training teams across Spain send 30-, 40-, or 50-page documents to employees who open them, scroll past the first page, and close them. Today, information retention in passive reading formats is around 10%.¹ The other 90% evaporates before it ever reaches the workplace. Not because employees don’t want to learn, but because the content is not delivered in a way that works.
The Spanish corporate training market generates more than €2.15 billion per year, with annual growth of 7.5%.² Investment is increasing, but formats are not keeping up. And that’s the real problem: it’s not a lack of budget, it’s a lack of formats that actually work.
This article explores real alternatives to PDFs for internal training, from the most accessible to the most transformative, backed by data to help you decide which one fits your team.
Because they are passive, static formats with no tracking capabilities, leading to low retention, zero personalization, and hidden maintenance costs.
It’s not that the content is bad. It’s that the container works against learning.
The brain processes visual information 60,000 times faster than text. A dense, text-heavy PDF is not visual content—it’s text in a frame. Audiovisual formats achieve retention rates above 65%, compared to 10% for passive reading.¹
A PDF doesn’t tell you who opened it, how long they read it, or which sections they reviewed. You send a document and hope it works. No data means no iteration, and no iteration means no improvement.
Every regulatory change or product update requires reviewing the document, redesigning it, redistributing it, and hoping everyone downloads the correct version. In regulated industries (compliance, safety, quality), this quickly becomes a constant bottleneck.
The same document reaches a sales rep in Madrid and a technician in Bilbao. It doesn’t adapt to role, experience level, or language. 91% of employees want training that is relevant to their role, and 90% want it to be engaging.³ A generic PDF meets neither expectation.
There are five main categories of formats that replace PDFs with different levels of impact: interactive presentations, LMS platforms, microlearning, recorded video, and AI-generated video.
Tools like Genially or Prezi allow you to create visual content with animations, buttons, and non-linear paths. They improve the experience compared to static PDFs, but the format is still fundamentally based on reading. Employees consume at their own pace, yes, but interaction is superficial and there’s no real understanding tracking.
They improve the experience compared to static PDFs, but they don’t solve the core problem: learning still depends on the individual reading, interpreting, and remembering on their own.
They work well as support material or visual communication.
As a primary training format, they often fall short.
Moodle, iSpring, TalentLMS, and similar platforms provide structure: learning paths, assessments, certifications, and tracking. The issue is that an LMS is a container, not a content creator. Many companies simply upload the same PDFs into the LMS, changing the channel but not the format.
An LMS solves distribution and tracking. Content quality still depends on what you put inside.
Platforms like TalentCards or EdApp break training into 3–7 minute modules focused on a single concept. Microlearning achieves completion rates of up to 80%, compared to 20% for long-form formats.⁴ And retention improves by 25% to 60% compared to traditional courses.
The limitation: it works best for reinforcement and updates rather than complex initial training. It won’t replace a two-hour product onboarding, but it can make those two hours digestible.
Tools like Loom or Camtasia allow screen and camera recording for tutorials and explanations. 68% of employees prefer video-based training over written material.⁵ The format works because it combines voice, visuals, and practical demonstration.
The downside is production. Recording, editing, and post-production take time and technical skills. And when content changes—a new process, a software update—you have to re-record everything. For teams whose training updates quarterly, maintenance costs escalate quickly.
This format combines the benefits of video with the agility of text. The result is shorter, more dynamic, and better-structured videos than traditional recordings, because the format is designed for modular consumption rather than long camera sessions.
Platforms like Vidext allow you to create training videos from a script or existing document, using realistic avatars and voices in over 40 languages, including regional variants such as Catalan, Galician, or Basque.
The key difference versus recorded video: when a regulation or process changes, you edit the text and regenerate the video in minutes. No re-recording, no scheduling, no production costs. Keeping training up to date stops being a logistical headache.
In addition, AI video platforms include built-in analytics: you can see who watched each module, how far they got, and which sections they replayed. That data enables continuous improvement—something PDFs can never offer.
It depends on the use case, but AI-generated video offers the best balance between retention, maintenance cost, personalization, and measurement.
| Criteria | LMS | Microlearning | Recorded Video | AI Video | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retention | ~10% | Variable (content-dependent) | 25–60% | ~65% | >65% (short, dynamic modules) |
| Update cost | High (redesign + redistribution) | Medium | Medium | High (re-recording) | Low (edit text) |
| Personalization | None | Medium (learning paths) | Medium (modules) | Low | High (languages, avatars) |
| Tracking | None | Full | Full | Limited |
Microlearning is a strong option for reinforcement and continuous training. An LMS remains essential for managing complex learning paths. But if you’re looking for a format that combines high retention with easy updates and real tracking, AI-generated video is the most complete alternative to PDFs—it’s the format that best balances retention, maintenance, personalization, and measurement when training needs to scale.
A study by University College London (UCL), one of Europe’s leading institutions in educational research, showed that AI-generated video matches instructor-recorded video in recall and recognition.⁶ Participants preferred it over written material. And that’s without factoring in that AI video tends to be shorter, more dynamic, and easier to structure into consumable modules—factors that in practice push retention even higher than traditional video.
You don’t need to discard existing materials. The PDFs and PowerPoints you already have are raw material for creating more effective formats.
Start with content that changes frequently: compliance, safety protocols, onboarding, product updates. These suffer most from the PDF format because every change requires full redistribution.
You don’t need to transform everything at once. Choose 2 or 3 priority trainings and convert them to video. Tools like Vidext allow you to import a PPT or PDF directly and turn it into video with avatar and voice in minutes—no technical team required.
Compare completion rates, retention, and satisfaction between the old format (PDF) and the new one (video). Data usually speaks for itself: video-based training consistently achieves significantly higher engagement levels than reading-based formats.
Once impact is proven, expand the format to other areas. Using AI in internal training allows you to scale without multiplying workload—especially relevant when you need to train large teams or distributed workforces.
Not always. PDFs remain useful as reference material employees consult occasionally: technical guides, specification tables, legal documents. Video clearly outperforms PDFs when training requires understanding and retention: onboarding, compliance, new processes, soft skills.
It depends on volume, but AI video platforms are significantly cheaper than traditional video production. Creating a training video with AI costs a fraction of filming with crew, actors, and post-production. Update costs are nearly zero because you edit the script and regenerate.
No. AI video tools are designed so anyone in L&D or HR can create content without editing skills. If you can write a script or upload a PowerPoint, you can create a video.
AI video platforms usually support multiple languages. The most advanced ones include dozens of languages with regional variants (Catalan, Galician, Basque), making it easy to train teams across regions without duplicating production work.
With PDFs, no. With AI video, yes. Platforms provide analytics showing who watched each module, how long they watched, and where they dropped off—enabling continuous improvement.
Most AI video platforms support LMS-compatible exports (SCORM, for example). You don’t have to choose between LMS and video—you can embed video content inside your existing platform.
¹ Employee Training Statistics and Trends - D2L
² Spanish Corporate Training Market Analysis - Modelos de Plan de Negocios
³ Employee Training Statistics - Devlin Peck
⁴ Microlearning Statistics, Facts and Trends - eLearning Industry
⁵ Video Training Statistics: Data, Trends & Predictions - Research.com
⁶ Why Video-Based Learning Still Matters in 2025 - Hurix
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
Newsletter
Discover all news and updates from Vidext
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
| Full |
| Scalability | High (low impact) | Medium | High | Low | High |
| Creation time | Low | High (platform setup) | Medium | High | Low–Medium |
