Pre-employment Assessments
Pre-employment Assessments Comparison
How to compare pre-employment testing products: the capabilities we check against each vendor’s own documentation, and the products verified so far.
LeadChange may earn a fee when you request pricing through our site or follow a sponsored link. Rankings never depend on whether a vendor pays us.We may earn a fee.
How we make money
LeadChange may earn a fee when you request pricing through our site or follow a sponsored link. Rankings never depend on whether a vendor pays us.
What we compare
No pre-employment testing product is verified yet. These are the capabilities each one will be checked against, in the vendor’s own documentation.
Capabilities in the comparison
Assessment library
Offers ready-made assessments of skills, cognitive ability, personality or job simulations.
Custom assessments
Lets employers build role-specific tests or question sets.
Validity documentation
Provides technical documentation on job-relatedness and validation studies.
Adverse impact monitoring
Reports pass rates by demographic group to monitor selection rates.
Disability accommodations
Supports extra time and alternative formats on request.
Automated scoring
Scores results automatically and shows candidates' scores to recruiters.
Proctoring and identity checks
Offers controls against cheating, such as identity verification or monitoring.
Mobile candidate experience
Lets candidates take tests on phones.
ATS integration
Sends tests from the applicant tracking system and returns results.
Records retention
Retains results for set periods and supports deletion.
How to choose pre-employment assessments software
The central question is whether a test measures something that matters for the job and does so fairly. Choose for validity evidence and legal defensibility first, candidate experience second, and test library breadth last.
Ask each vendor for the documentation behind the specific test you would use for your specific role, not general marketing material.
Validity and job-relatedness evidence
Under federal guidelines the employer is responsible for ensuring tests are valid, meaning they predict performance in the specific position.
Adverse impact monitoring
A selection rate for any group that is less than four-fifths of the highest group's rate is generally regarded as evidence of adverse impact.
Accommodations for disabilities
Employers must administer tests so results reflect the skill measured rather than an applicant's impairment.
Test content and role fit
Generic tests may measure things unrelated to your roles, which weakens defensibility.
Automated scoring and AI disclosure
Automated scoring may qualify as an automated employment decision tool, and New York City requires a bias audit within a year of use and notice to candidates.
Cheating and identity controls
Remote tests can be shared or completed by someone else, which makes scores meaningless.
Requirements by company size
Small businesses
- A short, role-specific test that takes little time to set up
- Pay-per-test or low-volume plans
- Clear accommodation instructions
Watch out for
- Annual minimums sized for high-volume hiring
- Generic personality tests used as pass/fail screens
- No validity documentation for the specific role
Mid-sized companies
- Native ATS integration
- Pass-rate reporting by group and stage
- Role libraries that your recruiters can configure
Watch out for
- Inconsistent use of tests across hiring managers
- Cut scores set without validation
- Per-candidate fees that grow with application volume
Enterprises
- Custom validation studies and technical support
- Adverse impact analytics across business units
- Single sign-on, data controls and audit logs
Watch out for
- Conflicting local rules for automated tools in different cities and states
- Long procurement and implementation cycles
- Dependence on a vendor for the only evidence that tests are valid
Red flags
- The vendor cannot supply a validation study for the test you plan to use
- Claims of a bias-free test with no data on group pass rates
- Cut scores recommended with no explanation of how they were set
- No process for accommodation requests
- Black-box AI scoring with no audit documentation
How we research
Ranked by the LeadChange Score, computed only from verified facts: capability coverage (30%), pricing and value (20%), integrations and API (15%), security (15%), fit and support (10%) and data confidence (10%), times a category fit. Products with too few verified facts are not scored yet and come last. Payment never changes a score or a position.
Facts, not impressions
Every input is a fact verified against vendors’ official documentation, with the date we last checked it.
Missing data is never assumed
Unverified items are left out of the score and lower its coverage; below 60% coverage a product is not scored yet.
Independent of revenue
Rankings never depend on whether a vendor pays us.
Get your pre-employment assessments shortlist
Tell us about your team and get a shortlist ranked without regard to who pays us.