Yes, the TinCan API (now called Experience API or xAPI -some of us prefer this term-) provides a different, in some ways more advanced way to track learning activities and events. Notice that I used the word "track" instead of "report", because they are two different things.⋅
In the context of web learning content, the things that happen as a student interacts with the content (navigation, answering questions, etc.) are detected by the content itself (so to speak)... but that information must be stored in some 'central' place, so we can store, aggregate and analyze info from many users. Therefore, aside from the content itself, tracking learning data requires some server-side component (the 'central' place). In the case of SCORM, you can think of the LMS as that server-side piece that will store that data (and will do many other things as well). In the case of xAPI, that server-side system is called a Learning Record Store (LRS).
SCORM and xAPI are different approaches and have different characteristics. In Adapt, the core team are working on a xAPI plugin, there's a gitter room where developers talk about this subject, so anyone can check out what's going on. Also, some moths ago I wrote a plugin for tracking in general, and it does xAPI tracking as a specific type of tracking. I'm planning to revisit it soon, improve it and document it better. So, I'd say that one way or another... I'd say that Adapt will be able to cover your needs. It might even be feasible to 'switch' SCORM tracking to xAPI tracking relatively easily in Adapt... but be careful, as I said, it's not only a matter of changing what the learning content is doing (how it's tracking user interactions/completion etc.) ... there's also your server-side component, how you deploy your content, your overall tracking needs/strategy, etc. So, all in all, I wouldn't say it will be simple to switch from SCORM to xAPI (even if in terms of Adapt content is relatively easy) .
Certainly, with xAPI you can track many more things than with SCORM, in fact you can track 'anything'... so it can be more powerful, but it can also be more challenging to define (as learning designers, as an organization...) what needs to be tracked and what questions you want to answer from your training data. LRSs usually provide some analysis/visualization tools, but this depends on the LRS itself. The main role of the LRS is to store 'statements' (in xAPI parlance, a "subject+verb+object construct that indicates that 'somebody did something')... so any analysis/visualization tools etc. are NOT part of the standard, they are implementation-specific. There's a fairly popular open-source LRS called Learning Locker (also with a commercial/hosted version)... and there are some commercial ones (GrassBlade, Wax LRS, Watershed, YetAnalitics...)
SCORM is a standard that has been in use for many years now. xAPI is more recent. In between there is something called CMI5, wich is a specific 'profile' of xAPI to be used with traditional LMSs, this is what we could call 'the next SCORM'.
I'd be inclined to tell you that xAPI -as a tracking mechanism- will be more flexible in the long run, but I must say that, even though SCORM is an older standard, the approach SCORM + traditional LMSs is very widely used (has been used for many many years), LMSs provide capabilities that might be of interest to your organization, and is an approach that makes sense in many envionments. Also, many traditional LMSs are adding LRS capabilities so they can play both roles.
So, the decision to go with one or the other, if you need to make that decision now, really depends on the needs of your organization... what tracking needs you have now and how those needs will evolve...