Let's be honest: reference checks are theater. Candidates provide three people who will say glowing things about them. You call those people, they say glowing things, you check the box, and everyone moves on with their lives.

But you still have to do them. And manually calling references is a special kind of tedious. Which is why reference checking software exists—to automate the tedium and (supposedly) get better insights than traditional phone calls.

I tested 5 reference checking platforms to see which ones actually deliver value versus which ones just digitize a broken process.

The Platforms I Tested

Checkster - The detailed survey approach SkillSurvey - The enterprise standard Crosschq - The modern challenger with AI Xref - The Australian import Good old phone calls - The baseline for comparison

The Core Value Prop (And Why It's Questionable)

Reference checking software promises three things:

1. Save time by automating outreach and data collection
2. Get better insights through structured questions and anonymity
3. Reduce bias with standardized evaluation frameworks

The time-saving part is real. The other two? Much more questionable.

Checkster: Surveys That Nobody Wants to Complete

Checkster sends references detailed surveys to complete online. Instead of a 10-minute phone call, references get a 15-20 minute survey with rating scales, open-ended questions, and competency assessments.

The theory: Written responses + structured questions = better data than phone calls.

The reality: Response rates are terrible. References ignore the surveys or rush through them providing low-quality answers. The ones who do complete them thoroughly tend to be HR people who understand recruiting processes—not the manager who actually worked with your candidate.

What works:

• When you get good responses, the structured data is useful
• Historical comparison across candidates in similar roles
• The written format creates a paper trail for compliance

What doesn't:

• Low completion rates (40-50% in my testing)
• Quality of responses is highly variable
• Feels impersonal and bureaucratic

Cost: $30-50 per reference check Verdict: Only useful if you're in a compliance-heavy industry that needs documented reference checks. Otherwise, the low response rates kill the value.

SkillSurvey: The Enterprise Default Nobody Loves

SkillSurvey is what large companies use because it checks all the compliance boxes and integrates with enterprise HR systems. It's professional, thorough, and about as exciting as an expense report.

The good:

• Extremely thorough process (if references complete it)
• Strong legal/compliance features
• Detailed competency mapping
• References can be anonymous (supposedly encourages honesty)

The bad:

• Complex for references to complete (20-30 minutes)
• Response rates are mediocre (50-60%)
• Expensive: $50-75 per check, plus setup fees
• The anonymity feature means you can't follow up on vague responses

Who it's for: Large enterprises with budget and compliance requirements that mandate thorough reference documentation.

Who it's not for: Literally everyone else.

Crosschq: The AI-Powered Modern Approach

Crosschq is the newcomer trying to fix reference checking with better technology. AI-powered insights, quality scores for references, predictive analytics about candidate success.

What they got right:

• Faster reference process (10-15 minutes)
• Better user experience for references
• The "reference quality score" is actually useful—tells you if the reference actually knows the candidate well
• Analytics on patterns across references

What's overhyped:

• The AI "insights" are mostly summarization, not real predictive value
• Predictive success scores are based on limited data and should be taken with a grain of salt
• Still relies on references completing surveys, so quality varies

What actually works:

• Quick 360-degree reference option that's fast enough people actually complete it
• Mobile-friendly for references
• Reasonable completion rates (60-70%)

Cost: $40-60 per reference check Verdict: Best-in-class for automated reference checking IF you believe reference checks provide value. At least it's usable.

Xref: The International Option

Xref is huge in Australia and growing in the US. It's similar to Checkster and SkillSurvey but with better UX and more flexibility in survey design.

What works:

• Customizable survey templates that aren't insanely long
• Good mobile experience for references
• Reasonable pricing: $25-40 per check
• Video reference option (interesting but rarely used)

What doesn't:

• Customer support is timezone-challenged if you're in the US
• Integration with US ATS platforms can be clunky
• Nothing revolutionary here—just solid execution

Verdict: Good alternative to Checkster if you want survey-based references without enterprise complexity. But not meaningfully better.

The Phone Call Approach: Still Works Best

Here's my uncomfortable conclusion after testing these platforms: for most roles, a 15-minute phone call with the right reference still provides better signal than any automated survey.

Why phone calls work better:

You can follow up: Reference says "they're great at problem-solving." You ask "can you give me an example?" Surveys don't allow that.

You can read tone: How enthusiastically does the reference talk about the candidate? This matters. Written surveys lose this completely.

You can ask unscripted questions: Something interesting comes up in conversation. You can explore it. Surveys are rigid.

Higher quality: A 15-minute conversation gets more useful insight than a 20-minute survey that someone rushed through.

When automated tools make sense:

• High-volume hiring: If you're checking references for 200+ hires per year, automation saves real time
• Compliance documentation: If you need thorough documentation for legal/compliance reasons
• International references: Time zone challenges make async surveys better than phone tag
• Junior roles: Where deep reference insights matter less and you just need to verify basics

The Reference Checking Hacks That Actually Work

Regardless of whether you use software or phone calls, here's what actually improves reference quality:

Ask for specific references, not general ones: "Can you provide your manager from your most recent role?" gets better results than "provide three professional references."

Go off-list: LinkedIn makes it easy to find people who worked with your candidate beyond their provided references. These unscripted references are often more valuable.

Ask better questions: "What's an example of a time [candidate] struggled and how did they handle it?" beats "rate their communication skills 1-5."

Talk to peers, not just managers: Peer references often provide more honest, practical insights than manager references.

Watch for red flags in the process: References who are hard to reach, vague in responses, or weirdly overly positive can signal problems.

The Dark Secret About Reference Checks

Here's what nobody wants to admit: most reference checks catch almost nothing. Candidates provide friendly references. Those references say nice things. You learn that yes, this person probably worked where they said they worked and people didn't hate them.

The real value of reference checks is defensive—protecting against the occasional candidate who fabricated their background or was a serious problem. For normal candidates with normal work histories, references provide marginal additional signal.

Before you spend thousands of dollars on reference checking software, ask yourself: what percentage of your hiring decisions have actually been changed by reference checks?

If the answer is "very few," maybe the problem isn't your reference checking process. Maybe it's that reference checks aren't that valuable to begin with.

My Recommendations

For most companies: Stick with phone calls for key hires. Save the money on software.

For high-volume hiring (100+ hires/year): Crosschq or Xref can save real time. The ROI pencils out when you're doing reference checks at scale.

For enterprise with compliance needs: SkillSurvey does what it needs to do. It's not fun, but it checks the boxes.

For everyone: Focus less on the tool and more on asking better reference questions and going beyond the candidate's provided list.

The Bottom Line

Reference checking software solves a real problem: manually doing reference checks is tedious. But it doesn't solve the fundamental problem: most reference checks don't provide that much value anyway.

If you're doing high-volume hiring and need to streamline the process, Crosschq or Xref are solid options. For everyone else, spending $40-50 per reference check to slightly automate a low-value process is probably not your best use of recruiting budget.

Better approach: Do fewer, better reference checks. Call references you actually want to talk to. Ask questions that matter. Follow up on vague answers. And accept that references are just one small data point in your overall evaluation.

The software won't make bad reference checks good. It'll just make them faster.