The biggest problem with pre-employment assessment tests is the quality and relevance of questions. Most platforms are focused on textbook questions/ puzzles/ niche algorithms which are not a true reflection of a candidate's on-the-job skills. This completely defeats the purpose of using skills assessments as a screening tool in the first place.
We’ve created this guide to give you a high level overview of which tool you might want to consider based on what your requirements are.
The primary thing to keep in mind is that an assessment is an elimination tool, not a selection tool. A skills assessment is optimized to help you eliminate candidates who are not qualified for the role, it is not optimized to help you find the best candidate for the role. So the ideal way to use an assessment is to decide a threshold score (that eliminates 70-80% of candidates) and invite all candidates who score above the threshold to the next rounds of interview.
If you are looking for:
When it comes to evaluating candidates on their algorithmic skills, HackerRank and Codility are industry leaders. They have a vast array of coding challenges across multiple domains from simple data structures to dynamic programming, and offer specialized testing environments.
Adaface: While we do have a library of questions focused on algorithmic skills, if you're looking to test candidates mainly on algorithms, it wouldn't make sense for you to use Adaface.
When screening candidates for technical roles, a Fizzbuzz type test is a great initial filter to check basic coding competence. To get a more comprehensive understanding of a candidate's skill set and to make the outcome non-binary, it helps to add a few scenario-based/ code parsing MCQs.
There are 100+ platforms just in this category alone but Adaface and TestDome are top contenders due to their high-quality questions. Most platforms often resort to trick or textbook-style questions that do not reflect real-world coding challenges. Adaface and TestDome prioritize practical, job-relevant questions. This emphasis on high-quality, relevant questions leads to accurate evaluation of candidates.
For in-depth assessments through extended 2-3 hour tests or project-based evaluations, DevSkiller and Qualified are standout choices. These platforms offers real-life coding environments and project simulations, which can help test if the candidate is well-versed in a particular tech-stack.
Typically we recommend shorter screening tests (that eliminate 70-80% of your candidate funnel), followed up with technical interviews. However, in some scenarios, a longer project-based test could be more appropriate. For e.g. if you do not have the in-house expertise for the skill to conduct interviews, or if you're hiring freelancers/ contractors.
Adaface: Most developers prefer customized IDE settings for performing coding tasks. It's unfair to expect them to do well on basic online IDEs with a timer. We do not cover project-style coding tasks.
If you are a large enterprise, looking for an enterprise-wide deployment, enterprise-grade solutions, SHL and Criteria Corp are industry leaders. They offer a wide array of tests, tailored analytics, and integrations suitable for intricate hiring workflows of big corporations.
If you're a mid-market company aiming for swift, efficient solutions, Adaface and TestDome are your go-to options. Both provide user-friendly interfaces, rapid test deployments, and a focus on real-world skills, making them perfect for companies that need to move quickly without compromising on the quality of assessments.
If you're screening for communication and interpersonal skills, interviews work best. But if you're looking for an automated filter, Vervoe might be a good choice. Vervoe uses video interviews and real-world job tasks to gauge candidates' communication abilities in realistic scenarios.
Adaface: As engineers, we're not experts on how to test for communication skills. We do not believe that we can accurately test anyone's communication skills via an automated test. We have tests for English proficiency (and 20 other languages), but we do not test for communication skills.
The Big 5 personality test is as the most widely accepted and research-backed assessment in the research community, especially when it comes to the hiring process. While there are numerous other personality assessments, such as the 16pf test and the DISC assessment, they lack validation for recruitment purposes. These tests and the scoring methodologies are standardized, so you can choose a platform based on user experience and ease of integration.
Adaface: We offer only the Big 5 personality test.
Many experts in the field approach "behavioural" or "motivation" tests with skepticism due to their lack of empirical support. Thomas focuses excusively on psychometric and leadership tests. The core test is built on top of the "DISC" theory.
Adaface: Under this umbrella, we only have a combination of aptitude testing and the Big 5 personality test.
Excel/ accounting/ customer service etc.: If the role has skills that can be objectively measured with a test, a short 25-30 min can help you screen candidates and identify top qualified candidates to interview. Adaface and TestDome are good options.
Sales roles: Depending on the seniority of the role, you can pick between a 20 min test (Adaface), or set up a 1-way video interview with 1-2 questions. Ideally such a test should not exceed 10 minutes. Avoid platforms that use "AI" to screen out candidates, you can watch the recorded answers and decide who to interview.
"Creative" or design roles: Depending on the seniority of the role, you can pick between a 20 min design test (Adaface), or ask them to submit their portfolio (Dribbble/ Behance) which you can review to shortlist candidates for interviews/ paid projects.
All advanced platforms have the same proctoring features: IP, web and video proctoring, screen sharing proctoring and code plagiarism checks. As long as the platform has the basics in check, you're good to go.
The idea behind a screening test is elimination, not selection. So as long as you're able to eliminate 70-80% of applicants with a short test, it doesn't matter if 1% of the candidates who passed cheated to make it through. It will be clear in the interviews.
A bigger concern if the questions on the test are google-able. Several of the platforms use popular/ textbook style questions the answers to which can be easily found online- this makes the test meaningless.
