AltHire TalentBoost is the latest recruiting tool promising to solve your slow hiring problem. Their claim is bold: 60% faster time-to-hire through AI-powered automation of screening, scheduling, and candidate engagement. The marketing is polished, the demo looks slick, and the testimonials are glowing.

I've been around recruiting tech long enough to know that marketing claims and real-world performance are often very different things. So I convinced my company to run a 60-day pilot with TalentBoost on 12 open roles to see if it actually delivers what it promises.

Spoiler: the results are mixed. TalentBoost does some things really well and some things poorly. Let's break down what works and what doesn't.

What AltHire TalentBoost Actually Does

TalentBoost is an AI-powered recruiting acceleration platform that plugs into your existing ATS and automates several time-intensive recruiting tasks:

Automated candidate screening: The AI reviews resumes against job requirements and ranks candidates by match quality. It flags top candidates for immediate review and filters out clearly unqualified applicants.

Intelligent interview scheduling: TalentBoost's scheduling assistant coordinates availability between candidates and hiring teams, books interviews, sends reminders, and handles rescheduling without human intervention.

Candidate engagement automation: The platform sends personalized status updates, answers common candidate questions via chatbot, and keeps candidates engaged throughout the process.

Analytics and bottleneck identification: TalentBoost tracks your hiring pipeline and surfaces where delays are occurring—whether it's screening backlogs, scheduling delays, or interview feedback gaps.

The promise is that by automating these tasks, recruiters spend less time on admin work and more time on relationship-building and closing candidates. Let's see if that's true.

Where TalentBoost Actually Delivers

After 60 days and 12 open roles, here's what worked:

The scheduling automation is legitimately excellent: This is TalentBoost's killer feature. Interview scheduling went from a 3-5 day back-and-forth email nightmare to same-day or next-day bookings. The AI integrates with Google Calendar and Outlook, checks everyone's availability, and books time slots automatically.

We measured the impact: average time from "let's interview this candidate" to scheduled interview dropped from 4.2 days to 1.1 days. That alone accounts for significant time savings.

Candidate engagement reduces drop-off: The automated status updates and chatbot responses kept candidates engaged. We saw a 22% reduction in candidate drop-off during the hiring process compared to our baseline. Candidates appreciated getting timely updates rather than radio silence.

The analytics dashboard is genuinely useful: TalentBoost shows exactly where your process is slowing down. We identified that interview feedback from hiring managers was our biggest bottleneck (taking an average of 3.4 days). Armed with that data, we implemented a 24-hour feedback SLA that cut our time-to-hire further.

Integration with existing ATS was smooth: TalentBoost connected to our Greenhouse instance without drama. Candidate data synced properly, and we didn't have to change our existing workflow significantly.

Where TalentBoost Falls Short

Now for the problems—and there are some real ones:

The "60% faster" claim is exaggerated: We did see time-to-hire improvement, but it was closer to 35-40%, not 60%. The 60% figure appears to be cherry-picked from their best-case clients, not typical results.

To be fair, 35-40% improvement is still significant. But when you're marketing "60%," delivering 35% feels like a miss.

AI screening quality is inconsistent: The resume screening worked well for straightforward roles with clear skill requirements. For roles requiring nuanced judgment—like senior leadership positions or creative roles—the AI often ranked candidates poorly. It overweighted keyword matches and underweighted context and career trajectory.

We ended up manually reviewing all candidates anyway for complex roles, which defeated the purpose of AI screening. TalentBoost works best for high-volume, well-defined roles.

The candidate chatbot is limited: The chatbot handles basic FAQs well—salary range, benefits, timeline, interview process. But the moment candidates ask nuanced questions about role specifics, team dynamics, or growth opportunities, it deflects to "A recruiter will follow up with you."

Research shows candidates get frustrated when chatbots can't answer substantive questions. TalentBoost's bot isn't sophisticated enough to handle complex conversations, which limits its value.

No phone screen automation: TalentBoost doesn't handle phone screens, which is a major gap. If your process includes phone screens (and most do), you're still manually scheduling and conducting those. This is a significant chunk of time-to-hire that TalentBoost doesn't address.

Customization is limited: The platform works great if your process matches their default workflow. If you have unique process steps or custom evaluation criteria, expect frustration. TalentBoost is somewhat rigid—it's built for speed, not flexibility.

Who Should Actually Use TalentBoost

TalentBoost makes sense for:

• Companies doing high-volume hiring for relatively standardized roles (sales, customer success, operations, junior engineering)
• Teams struggling with interview scheduling delays (if this is your bottleneck, TalentBoost will save you massive time)
• Organizations with straightforward, consistent hiring processes that don't require heavy customization
• Recruiting teams stretched thin who need to automate admin work to focus on strategic activities

TalentBoost does NOT make sense for:

• Companies hiring primarily senior/executive roles where AI screening doesn't add value
• Organizations with highly customized or complex hiring processes that require flexibility
• Small businesses hiring occasionally (the ROI isn't there if you're only filling a few roles per year)
• Companies expecting 60% time-to-hire improvement (set realistic expectations around 30-40%)

How TalentBoost Compares to Alternatives

If you're evaluating recruiting automation tools, here's how TalentBoost stacks up:

Paradox (Olivia) - More sophisticated conversational AI, better chatbot experience. Stronger on candidate engagement. Similar pricing. Better if CX is your top priority.

GoodTime - Best-in-class interview scheduling, but doesn't do screening or engagement. Better if scheduling is your only problem.

HireVue - Stronger on assessments and interview intelligence, weaker on scheduling automation. Different use case.

Phenom - More comprehensive talent experience platform, but more expensive and complex. Better for enterprises with sophisticated needs.

The Real Cost (And Whether It's Worth It)

AltHire TalentBoost pricing is tiered based on hiring volume:

• Small teams (under 50 hires/year): Starting around $12,000 annually
• Mid-market (50-200 hires/year): $25,000-$50,000 annually
• Enterprise (200+ hires/year): $50,000+ annually, custom pricing

Is it worth it? Depends on your hiring volume and what you're trying to solve.

If interview scheduling is killing your time-to-hire: TalentBoost will pay for itself quickly. Cutting 3-4 days from every hire adds up fast.

If you need comprehensive AI screening: You might be disappointed. The screening is okay for straightforward roles but not sophisticated enough for complex hiring.

If you're hiring high-volume, standardized roles: Strong ROI. The automation compounds across hundreds of hires.

If you're hiring low-volume, senior roles: Weak ROI. You won't use the automation enough to justify the cost.

The Bottom Line

AltHire TalentBoost is a solid recruiting automation tool—not revolutionary, but solid. The interview scheduling automation is excellent and will save you real time. The candidate engagement features reduce drop-off. The analytics help identify bottlenecks.

But the "60% faster time-to-hire" claim is overstated. Expect 30-40% improvement for most organizations, which is still significant but not the headline number.

The AI screening is decent for high-volume, standardized roles but struggles with nuanced, senior, or creative positions. If you're expecting to fully automate candidate evaluation, you'll be disappointed.

TalentBoost is worth considering if you're doing high-volume hiring and struggling with scheduling delays and candidate engagement. It's not worth it if you're hiring occasionally for complex roles that require heavy human judgment.

Don't buy tools based on marketing claims. Buy them based on whether they solve your specific problems at a price that makes economic sense. TalentBoost solves scheduling and engagement problems well. If those are your bottlenecks, it's a good investment. If they're not, look elsewhere.

TalentBoost Pros:

• Excellent interview scheduling automation (saves 3-4 days per hire)
• Reduces candidate drop-off with engagement automation
• Useful analytics for identifying bottlenecks
• Smooth ATS integration

TalentBoost Cons:

• "60% faster" claim is exaggerated (expect 30-40%)
• AI screening inconsistent for complex/senior roles
• Chatbot limited to basic FAQs
• No phone screen automation
• Limited customization options

Bottom line: Worth it for high-volume hiring with scheduling bottlenecks. Not worth it for low-volume, complex hiring. Set realistic expectations on time savings.