Skills Assessment Platforms: Which Ones Actually Predict Job Performance (And Which Are Just Expensive Personality Quizzes)
Interviews are subjective. Resumes are inflated. Skills assessments promise objective data about whether candidates can actually do the job.
Some platforms deliver legitimate predictive value—actual tests of job-relevant skills that correlate with performance. Others are personality quizzes disguised as "science" that predict nothing useful.
Here's which skills assessment platforms are worth using and which ones are expensive theater.
What Actually Makes A Skills Assessment Effective
Not all skills assessments are created equal. Before comparing platforms, understand what separates signal from noise:
Job-relevant: The assessment should test skills actually used in the role, not generic "problem-solving" or "personality traits."
Validated: The platform should have research showing the assessment predicts job performance. "This feels right" isn't validation.
Fair: Assessments shouldn't have adverse impact on protected groups. If one demographic consistently scores lower, the test is biased or not measuring what you think.
Practical: Candidates should complete assessments in 20-45 minutes, not 3 hours. Long assessments create dropoff.
Good candidate experience: Assessments should feel relevant and professional, not like taking a BuzzFeed quiz.
Codility: The Technical Assessment Leader
Codility is the gold standard for technical hiring assessments.
What it tests: Programming skills, algorithms, problem-solving, debugging.
Pricing: Custom enterprise pricing. Expect $5K-$20K+ annually.
What it does well:
Real coding tests: Candidates write actual code in real development environments. Not multiple choice questions about code.
Cheating detection: Plagiarism detection, code similarity analysis, behavioral signals that flag suspicious activity.
Language support: Supports 70+ programming languages. Candidates code in their preferred language.
Automated evaluation: Code is graded automatically for correctness, efficiency, and edge cases.
ATS integration: Integrates with Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, and other major platforms.
Custom challenges: Create company-specific coding challenges beyond the standard library.
What it doesn't do well:
Expensive: This is enterprise software with enterprise pricing. Small companies can't afford it.
Only useful for technical roles: If you're not hiring developers, Codility offers nothing.
Can feel intimidating: Some candidates find timed coding challenges stressful. You might lose candidates who don't perform well under pressure.
Best for: Companies hiring developers at scale who need validated technical assessments.
Skip if: You're not hiring technical roles or can't afford $5K+ annually.
Criteria Corp: The Evidence-Based All-Rounder
Criteria offers validated assessments for cognitive ability, personality, and skills across roles.
What it tests: Cognitive ability, personality traits, job-specific skills (typing, Excel, customer service, etc.).
Pricing: Starts around $30-$50 per assessment. Volume discounts available.
What it does well:
Validated assessments: Criteria's tests are research-backed and predict job performance across roles.
Wide range of tests: Not just one type of assessment—cognitive, personality, emotional intelligence, skills.
Affordable: Pay-per-assessment model is accessible for small companies.
Fast: Most assessments take 15-30 minutes. Candidates don't drop off due to length.
Adverse impact analysis: Criteria monitors for bias and provides EEOC compliance reports.
What it doesn't do well:
Generic tests: Assessments aren't customized to your company. They're standardized across industries.
Limited technical depth: Programming assessments exist but aren't as sophisticated as Codility.
Basic reporting: You get scores and data, but not deep analytics.
Best for: Companies hiring across multiple roles who want validated, affordable assessments.
Skip if: You need deep technical assessments or highly customized tests.
Pymetrics: The Neuroscience-Based Platform
Pymetrics uses neuroscience games to assess cognitive and emotional traits.
What it tests: Cognitive abilities, attention, risk tolerance, decision-making, fairness, generosity, and other behavioral traits.
Pricing: Custom enterprise pricing.
What it does well:
Science-backed: Uses neuroscience and AI to measure traits that predict job fit.
Bias reduction: Pymetrics actively audits for algorithmic bias and adjusts models to reduce adverse impact.
Engaging candidate experience: Feels like playing games, not taking a test. Better completion rates than traditional assessments.
Soft skills focus: Measures collaboration, adaptability, and emotional intelligence—things traditional tests miss.
Ethical AI: Transparent about how algorithms work and committed to fairness.
What it doesn't do well:
Doesn't test hard skills: Pymetrics measures traits and behaviors, not technical abilities. You still need other assessments for skills.
Black box concerns: Some hiring managers don't trust "neuroscience games" they don't fully understand.
Enterprise-only pricing: Small companies can't afford it.
Validation questions: While Pymetrics claims scientific validation, some researchers question whether games predict job performance as well as traditional assessments.
Best for: Large companies hiring for soft-skills-heavy roles who want bias-reduced assessments.
Skip if: You need hard skills testing, want to understand exactly how assessments work, or have a limited budget.
HackerRank: The Developer Hiring Platform
HackerRank combines coding assessments with developer challenges and competitions.
What it tests: Programming, algorithms, databases, AI/ML, security, and other technical skills.
Pricing: Starts around $100/month for small teams. Enterprise pricing for larger companies.
What it does well:
Developer-friendly: HackerRank is where developers actually practice coding. Candidates are familiar with the platform.
Real-world challenges: Candidates solve actual problems, not theoretical puzzles.
Broad technical coverage: Not just algorithms—databases, DevOps, security, data science.
Leaderboards and gamification: Competitive candidates enjoy the ranking system.
Library of challenges: Extensive pre-built challenges plus ability to create custom tests.
What it doesn't do well:
Cheating is easier: Less sophisticated anti-cheating than Codility.
Interface can feel gamified: Some candidates find the competitive/gamification angle off-putting.
Less enterprise-focused: Better for startups and mid-size companies than large enterprises.
Best for: Tech companies hiring developers who want an affordable, developer-friendly assessment platform.
Skip if: You need enterprise-grade anti-cheating or non-technical assessments.
TestGorilla: The SMB Skills Testing Platform
TestGorilla offers affordable skills testing for small and mid-size businesses.
What it tests: Technical skills, cognitive ability, language, personality, situational judgment—300+ tests.
Pricing: Starts at $75/month for 5 assessments. Scales based on usage.
What it does well:
Affordable: Significantly cheaper than Criteria or Pymetrics.
Wide test library: 300+ pre-built tests covering technical skills, soft skills, and cognitive ability.
Custom tests: Create your own questions and tests.
Anti-cheating features: Webcam monitoring, time limits, question randomization.
Simple interface: Easy to set up and use without training.
What it doesn't do well:
Less validation: TestGorilla doesn't have the same level of academic validation as Criteria.
Generic tests: Tests aren't customized to your company or deeply validated for specific roles.
Webcam monitoring privacy concerns: Some candidates object to being recorded during assessments.
Best for: Small businesses that want affordable skills testing across multiple roles.
Skip if: You need deeply validated assessments with academic research backing.
What About Personality Tests?
Personality assessments are controversial in hiring:
Myers-Briggs (MBTI): Not validated for hiring. Fun for team-building, useless for selection.
DiSC: Primarily for development, not hiring. Can create adverse impact if used for selection.
Big Five / OCEAN: Has some research support for predicting job performance, but limited.
Verdict: Use validated personality assessments (like Criteria's) if you must. Avoid MBTI and DiSC for hiring decisions.
Cognitive Ability Tests: The Most Predictive Assessments
Research consistently shows cognitive ability tests are the best predictors of job performance:
Wonderlic: Classic cognitive ability test used by NFL and many companies. 12-minute test of problem-solving.
Criteria CCAT: Modern alternative to Wonderlic. 15 minutes, validated across roles.
Why they work: Cognitive ability predicts learning speed, problem-solving, and adaptability—traits valuable in almost every job.
The catch: Cognitive tests can have adverse impact on some groups. Use as one data point, not the only data point.
How To Choose The Right Skills Assessment Platform
For technical hiring: Codility (enterprise) or HackerRank (SMB/startup)
For validated assessments across roles: Criteria
For bias-reduced, soft-skills assessments: Pymetrics
For affordable SMB testing: TestGorilla
For cognitive ability only: Wonderlic or Criteria CCAT
Don't use: MBTI, DiSC, or any "personality test" without validation research
The Bottom Line
Skills assessments work when they test job-relevant skills and have validation data. They fail when they're generic personality quizzes or measure traits unrelated to job performance.
Use assessments to complement interviews, not replace them. No test is perfect. Combine assessment data with interview performance, work samples, and references.
Watch for adverse impact. Monitor whether assessments screen out protected groups disproportionately. If they do, either fix the test or stop using it.
Make assessments candidate-friendly. Keep them short, relevant, and respectful of candidates' time.
Sources:
Your Ad Could Be Here
Promote your recruiting platform, tools, or services to thousands of active talent acquisition professionals
AI-Generated Content
This article was generated using AI and should be considered entertainment and educational content only. While we strive for accuracy, always verify important information with official sources. Don't take it too seriously—we're here for the vibes and the laughs.