Background checks are boring but necessary, and Checkr has disrupted the industry by making them faster and cheaper through automation. But here's the question that keeps HR leaders up at night: when you're moving this fast, are you missing things that traditional providers would catch?

Let's dig into the actual tradeoffs instead of just repeating marketing claims.

What Makes Checkr Different

Traditional background check companies like Sterling, HireRight, and First Advantage have been around forever. They rely heavily on manual processes, phone calls to courthouses, and human verification.

Checkr built a platform that automates as much as possible. They use APIs to pull data from databases, machine learning to flag discrepancies, and digital workflows that integrate directly with your ATS. The result: background checks that take 1-3 days instead of 5-7+ days, and cost 30-50% less than traditional providers.

Sounds great, right? But there are tradeoffs.

Where Checkr Wins

Speed. Most Checkr reports come back in 1-3 business days; some same-day for simple checks. Traditional providers often take a week or more. When you need to onboard quickly, this matters.

Price. Checkr's pricing is typically $30-80 per check depending on what you're screening for. Traditional providers often charge $50-150+ for comparable packages. For high-volume hiring, these savings add up fast.

Modern technology. Checkr's dashboard is actually good. Candidates get text notifications, you can track status in real-time, and everything integrates with modern ATS platforms. Traditional providers often have interfaces that look like they were designed in 2005.

Candidate experience. The mobile-friendly consent process and text updates make the experience less painful for candidates. Traditional background checks often involve printing, signing, scanning, and waiting with zero visibility into status.

Compliance features. Checkr has built-in adverse action workflows, FCRA compliance tools, and automatic ban-the-box adherence. You're less likely to accidentally violate employment law. Traditional providers offer this too, but Checkr automates more of it.

Where Checkr Falls Short

Now let's talk about the problems:

Data gaps in certain jurisdictions. Checkr relies on digital databases, but not all counties have digitized records. Some rural counties still require physical courthouse visits that automated platforms struggle with. Traditional providers with human researchers handle these situations better.

Accuracy concerns. Multiple users report occasional errors—wrong person's records, outdated information, or missed convictions. When you're automating data aggregation, mistakes happen. Traditional providers with human verification layers catch some errors that slip through automation.

Limited international capabilities. Checkr focuses primarily on US background checks. If you need comprehensive international screening, traditional providers like Sterling or HireRight have better global infrastructure.

Support can be hit-or-miss. When something goes wrong, getting human support can be frustrating. They're built for scale and automation, which sometimes means support isn't as responsive as you'd want for urgent issues.

May not be suitable for high-risk roles. For executive positions, security clearances, or roles with access to sensitive data, the thoroughness of traditional providers might be worth the extra time and money.

The Accuracy Question

Here's the uncomfortable truth: all background check companies miss things sometimes. Court records have errors, databases aren't always current, and people with common names get confused with each other.

Checkr's automation means they might miss things that a human researcher would catch, but they also avoid human errors like transcription mistakes or skipped steps. Traditional providers catch some things automation misses, but they also take longer and cost more.

The question isn't "which is perfectly accurate?"—neither is. The question is: "which error rate is acceptable for your risk tolerance and budget?"

When to Use Which Provider

Use Checkr if you're hiring:

• High volume roles (retail, hospitality, warehouse)
• Non-sensitive positions where extensive background checks aren't critical
• Roles where speed-to-hire is crucial
• In metro areas with good digital records
• On a tight budget where cost per hire matters

Use traditional providers if you're hiring:

• Executive or high-sensitivity roles
• Positions requiring security clearances
• Jobs with access to financial systems or sensitive data
• International roles requiring global screening
• In jurisdictions with poor digital records
• When accuracy is more important than speed

The Hybrid Approach

Here's what smart companies do: use Checkr for volume hiring and routine checks, and use traditional providers for senior or sensitive roles.

You can have both Checkr and a traditional provider contracted, and decide per-role which to use. A warehouse associate? Checkr's fine. A CFO? Maybe spend the extra money and time on Sterling or HireRight.

The Cheaper Alternative

GoodHire - Similar to Checkr with tech-forward approach, sometimes even cheaper. Worth comparing.

Accurate Background - Mid-point between Checkr and traditional providers. Modern technology but with more human verification.

DIY courthouse searches - For super small companies, you can technically do this yourself. But the time investment makes it not worth it unless you're hiring one person per year.

What About Adverse Action?

One thing Checkr does well: their adverse action workflow is automated and compliant. When something comes back that might disqualify a candidate, the platform guides you through the FCRA-required steps: pre-adverse action notice, waiting period, final adverse action notice.

Traditional providers offer this too, but it's often more manual. Checkr's automation reduces the risk of screwing up the process and getting sued.

The Bottom Line

Checkr is a legitimately good background check solution for most hiring scenarios. It's faster, cheaper, and more user-friendly than traditional providers. For volume hiring of non-sensitive roles, it's probably the right choice.

But for senior hires, sensitive positions, or international screening, traditional providers still have advantages in thoroughness and global reach. The extra cost and time might be justified for roles where a background check error could be catastrophic.

Don't pick a background check provider based on price alone. Consider your risk tolerance, role sensitivity, hiring volume, and speed requirements. For many companies, a hybrid approach using different providers for different types of roles makes the most sense.

And whatever you choose: actually read the reports instead of just checking for a green/red indicator. Background checks are data, not decisions. You still need to use judgment about what matters for the specific role.

Technology has made background checks faster and cheaper, but it hasn't made them perfect. Choose your provider based on which imperfections you can live with.