An ever-growing call for the use of evidence-based practice has come up against the logistical hurdles of a lack of resources and expertise, particularly in rural schools that work with historically underserved students. Although integrated learning systems (ILSs)--stable and likely requiring fewer resources than personnel--do not offer a complete solution to this problem, they may serve as a useful resource, particularly for milder literacy deficits. And yet, there is a surprising lack of empirical research on their effectiveness, particularly for contemporary programs. This study examines the effectiveness and efficiency of two popular ILSs, "Lexia" and "iStation," both of which use a blended model of computer and traditionally delivered instruction, and compares them against business-as-usual (BAU) conditions across a variety of outcomes. Results suggest both programs resulted in meaningful growth across an academic year of implementation, although generally no more so than that observed in the BAU condition. However, "Lexia" yielded the highest level of instructional efficiency. That is, despite comparable growth across conditions, "Lexia" required less staff time to implement per student participant.