For CCFP 2027, choose a resource that demonstrates the response formats you need, not one that merely includes "SAMP" in its name. TopQbank's public CCFP page describes MCQs and short-menu questions, while SampQs prominently describes free-text answers and AI feedback. Those propositions require different checks before either can be called complete preparation for the new written format.
This comparison is published by iatroX and includes iatroX among the learning options considered. It reflects public pages reviewed on 24 September 2026, not an authenticated trial of every question type or an independent validation of the providers' marking.
What changes in 2027?
The College of Family Physicians of Canada, checked on 24 September 2026, states that all written examination cases will use multiple-choice or short-menu questions in 2027. Its transition notice distinguishes that position from the mixed-format transition during 2026.
That is a change in response mechanics, not evidence that clinical reasoning has become unnecessary. Candidates still need to interpret the problem, identify the decision and distinguish plausible choices. A selection-based task can expose poor prioritisation even when the learner recognises every term in the menu.
The practical implication is to inspect examples. A landing page describing the official change is not proof that the purchased bank implements both formats throughout its relevant content.
A dated format-support matrix
| Requirement | TopQbank, public information checked 24 September 2026 | SampQs, public information checked 24 September 2026 | Buying implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCFP-specific preparation | A dedicated CCFP SAMP page is available | The service is positioned around CCFP SAMP preparation | Both have a relevant stated audience |
| MCQ practice | Visible public examples use answer options | The reviewed page emphasises written responses | Inspect the actual MCQ pool rather than infer it |
| Short-menu implementation | The exam description names short-menu questions; the inspected examples do not establish a complete short-menu workflow | Current short-menu functionality was not established by the reviewed page | Request a working example and its response instructions |
| Feedback | Explanations and study modes are described | Free-text grading and feedback are described | Examine reasoning, not only an awarded score |
| Current-format mock fidelity | Full equivalence to the 2027 written experience is not established here | Free-text mock descriptions do not establish 2027 selection-format fidelity | Verify the specific mock you would buy |
| Topic targeting | Topic filters and progress information are described | Weak-topic targeting is described | Check whether focused work preserves broader coverage |
The evidence comes from TopQbank's CCFP product page and SampQs. "Not established" means the public material did not resolve the question; it does not mean the capability cannot exist behind login or be introduced later.
Why a short menu is not just a longer MCQ
An ordinary single-best-answer question asks the candidate to identify one best response. A short-menu task may require selection under a different instruction. The learner must pay attention to the number or kind of responses requested rather than assume the mechanics from another question format.
A useful demonstration should show the full instruction, available options, selection behaviour and feedback. Ask whether the explanation addresses both selected and rejected responses. A statement that an option is generally sensible may not explain why it is outside the requested set in this particular case.
Do not use a generic timing figure on a vendor page as evidence that an entire mock faithfully reproduces the official assessment. Compare the proposed practice session with the CFPC's current examples and candidate information, rather than treating every product labelled "SAMP" as mechanically equivalent.
Follow one learner's purchasing decision
Consider a fictional resident, Maya, who already owns a collection of older write-in cases. She can generate a reasonable management outline, but she often chooses too many plausible actions when options are supplied. Her missing skill is not necessarily generating more ideas; it is narrowing them to the task.
Maya should inspect a new-format example before buying another large case collection. She should explain why each selected response belongs and why a tempting alternative does not. If the demonstration only shows a correct-answer reveal, she should ask how the product supports that distinction.
Another fictional candidate, Oliver, has the opposite difficulty. He recognises the correct choice when it is visible but cannot generate the relevant clinical problem independently. Free-text learning may remain useful for him, provided he also rehearses the current examination mechanics. A useful learning tool need not duplicate the examination in every session, but the difference should be deliberate.
Evaluate feedback without treating AI marks as official marks
Feedback should point to the learner's reasoning, not merely display a reassuring score. In a written-response activity, ask whether the system distinguishes an omission from an incorrect statement and whether it explains the basis for awarding credit. In a selection task, ask why another plausible choice was rejected.
An AI-generated mark is a product output. It should not be presented as a CFPC result, evidence of examiner agreement or a validated prediction of passing. The existence of a reference link also does not establish that the reference supports every part of the feedback.
Inspect an original example with a deliberately ambiguous explanation. A useful system should acknowledge what is missing or clarify an assumption rather than invent information to make the answer fit. This is a proposed inspection method, not a reported test result for TopQbank or SampQs.
Keep older material for the right job
An older case can still reveal a knowledge gap or help a learner practise generating a differential. Its clinical teaching should be checked for currency, and its response mechanics should be labelled correctly. Do not discard useful material solely because the official format is changing.
Equally, do not call an old write-in paper a current-format mock. A study plan can contain content rebuilding, unaided generation and selection-format rehearsal as separate activities. The problem arises when one is silently substituted for another.
Do not upload proprietary case collections into an AI service to convert them wholesale. Create original exercises around a learning objective or use material for which you have the necessary permission.
Apply the same standard to iatroX
Per iatroX product information, September 2026, its examination catalogue includes CCFP preparation, with adaptive practice and Socratic tutoring among the platform's learning methods. A CCFP listing alone does not establish a validated short-menu interface or complete 2027 mock fidelity. Those claims require their own product-specific evidence.
For a learner needing fresh MCQ practice, TopQbank's visible selection-based samples offer a concrete starting point for inspection. For a learner seeking unaided written reasoning and feedback, SampQs' published free-text proposition may address a different need. For a learner seeking current-format short-menu rehearsal, neither broad branding nor this review substitutes for a demonstrated example.
The sensible outcome may be to keep an existing reasoning resource and add only the missing response-format practice. That is a more precise decision than declaring one platform the universal CCFP winner.
Frequently asked questions
Will the CCFP written examination still require write-in answers in 2027?
The CFPC transition notice reviewed on 24 September 2026 states that all written cases will use MCQ or short-menu questions in 2027. Candidates should follow the College's current instructions for their sitting.
Does TopQbank's mention of short-menu questions prove every format is implemented?
No. Inspect a working short-menu example and the relevant mock rather than infer complete support from an examination description.
Is SampQs' free-text practice still useful?
It can be useful for generating and explaining clinical reasoning. It should be complemented by demonstrated current-format practice when preparing for the 2027 written examination.