Hired flips the recruiting script: candidates create profiles, companies bid for their attention. It's Tinder but companies swipe on you, and instead of pickup lines, you get salary offers. The concept sounds insane. The execution is surprisingly not terrible.

How This Backwards Thing Works

Tech professionals (mostly engineers, designers, product managers) create profiles with salary expectations and job preferences. Companies review profiles and send interview requests with upfront compensation details. Candidates pick which opportunities interest them. Revolutionary? No. Different enough to matter? Maybe.

The platform focuses on tech roles and operates in major markets. If you're recruiting accountants in Omaha or hiring marketing managers in Boise, this isn't your tool. If you need senior engineers in San Francisco, it might be.

G2 reviews sit at 4.4/5, with candidates generally happier than employers. Makes sense - having companies compete for you is objectively more pleasant than begging for interviews like a peasant.

The Candidate Experience (AKA Why People Use It)

Transparency is the headline feature. Companies must include salary ranges in interview requests. No more "depends on experience" nonsense or wasting three interviews before discovering they're offering $40K below market.

Candidates set their terms: remote requirements, location preferences, company stage, industries to avoid. The matching algorithm supposedly respects these, though like most algorithms, it sometimes sends you jobs that make you wonder if it can actually read.

Capterra reviews highlight the "talent advocate" feature - actual humans who help candidates prep for interviews and negotiate offers. Whether they're effective or just cheerleaders depends on who you get, but free interview coaching is free interview coaching.

The bias reduction angle: profiles don't include photos or names initially, just skills and experience. Does this meaningfully reduce bias? Debatable. Does it let them market themselves as equity-focused? Absolutely.

The Employer Experience (AKA Why You'd Pay For This)

Pre-vetted candidates who are actively looking and have stated salary expectations. That's the pitch. You're not cold-sourcing LinkedIn or hoping Indeed applicants aren't bots. Everyone on Hired is theoretically hire-able and motivated.

Reality check: "pre-vetted" means they created a profile, not that they're definitely qualified for your specific role. You still need to assess fit, skills, and culture. It's sourcing efficiency, not magic.

Employers pay per hire, not per applicant or per post. Pricing info from G2 suggests $15K-20K per successful hire for engineering roles. Compared to 20-25% agency fees, that's competitive. Compared to internal recruiting or job boards, that's expensive.

The response rates are supposedly higher because candidates opted into your outreach. According to Hired's own data, employer messages get 4x higher response rates than typical cold outreach. Take that with the appropriate grain of salt, considering the source.

Where This Model Falls Apart

Selection limitations. You're choosing from whoever's on Hired, not the entire talent market. If your perfect candidate isn't actively on the platform, you're out of luck. It's a curated marketplace, which means curated limitations.

Tech-focused means everyone else is irrelevant. Need operations, finance, customer success, or literally anything non-tech? Go elsewhere. This is engineer-and-adjacent recruiting only.

Competition is baked into the model. Candidates receive multiple interview requests for similar roles. You're not the only company bidding. If you're not offering competitive comp and interesting work, you're losing to someone who is. That's kind of the point, but it makes mid-tier opportunities harder to fill.

User complaints on G2 mention flaky candidates who create profiles but ghost interview requests. Turns out, passive candidates are passive for a reason. Sometimes they're exploring options. Sometimes they're bored and window-shopping.

The Honest Assessment

For tech recruiting in competitive markets, Hired makes sense if you have budget and need efficiency. You'll spend less time sourcing and more time actually interviewing candidates who know what you're offering and are genuinely interested.

For companies with tight budgets or recruiting outside major tech hubs, the ROI isn't there. You're paying premium prices for access to a pool that might not include your ideal candidates.

For candidates, it's basically free upside. Create a profile, see what offers come in, ignore the irrelevant ones. Worst case: nothing happens. Best case: competing offers and salary transparency.

The reverse marketplace model isn't revolutionary, but it's different enough to carve out a niche. Whether that niche includes your hiring needs depends entirely on what you're hiring for and how much you're willing to spend.

Check reviews: G2 | Capterra