Comparisons
Savvanta next to the tools you already pay for
Hiring runs on two separate purchases. One gets you applicants. The other works out which of them can do the job. Almost every tool on the market is unambiguously one or the other, and the gap between them is where bad hires are made.
The fact that decided this page. The two largest applicant pools in the world each built a skills test, ran it for years, and switched it off. LinkedIn Skill Assessments are retired — LinkedIn's stated reason is that hirers increasingly value “examples of how a candidate applied their skills”. Indeed discontinued assessments globally and did not replace them, saying the tests added confusion and extra steps. Neither company concluded that evaluation does not matter. Both concluded that a short unproctored quiz was not evidence of anything.
The two grounds, and who holds each
Ground one — where the applicants come from
LinkedIn, Indeed, your careers page, agencies, referrals. These are distribution. They are extremely good at it and Savvanta does not replace any of them — we have no job board, no candidate database you can search, and no sourcing product. What they hand you is a pile of claims: a CV, a profile, a self-reported skill list. As of 2026 neither of the big two even attempts to verify those claims, by their own choice.
Ground two — where the claims get tested
TestGorilla, HackerRank, Codility, CodeSignal, Vervoe. These convert a claim into a number. They are real products doing real work, and on several axes they are ahead of us — question libraries a decade deep, ATS integrations we do not have, and in HackerRank's case an integrity report as detailed as anyone's. What almost none of them sell is the third thing.
Ground three — defending the decision afterwards
A score is not a decision. Somebody has to be able to say, months later and possibly to a lawyer or a works council, why this candidate was declined, what they were marked against, who confirmed it, and what happened when they objected. This ground is close to empty. Zero of the sixteen assessment vendors we surveyed publish a sample of the report a buyer receives, and none publish the mark scheme before you sign.
What that means in practice
Who tells me whether this person can actually do the work?
Neither, any more. Both retired their skills tests; the profile and the CV are what you get. Volume has meanwhile gone the other way — applications per job rose from about 115 to 244 between 2022 and 2025 across 640 million applications.
Source: Greenhouse Benchmark Report, March 2026 (North America)
A score against a library item, plus behaviour flags. Useful for ruling people out at the top of a funnel. Rarely the thing you would put in front of a hiring manager as proof.
A recorded attempt at a task written for that role, marked against a published six-criterion scheme with the evidence quoted next to every score, and confirmed by a named human before it counts.
What this meansThese are not competing purchases. The pool feeds the assessment. The question is only whether what comes out the far end is a number or a record.
If a candidate cheats, what do I actually have?
Flags to contextualise. TestGorilla puts this plainly in its own words: its detection “doesn’t and cannot tell you who cheated; it can point to behaviours which you can contextualise”, and no assessment “has ever been 100% cheat-proof”.
Source: TestGorilla — Why it's impossible to prevent cheating
The same limitation applies to us and we say so on the fraud page. What differs is what is left over: a continuous recording of the person and their screen for the whole attempt, and a task shaped so that a proxy or a model in an overlay does not get you through it.
What this meansNobody in this market can sell you detection that works. The defensible question is what your process still produces once you assume detection fails.
Six months later, can I defend the decline?
A score, a percentile, and a behaviour tier. The mark scheme is generally not published, there is usually no candidate-facing appeal with written reasons, and adjustments for disabled candidates are handled by support ticket if at all.
The mark scheme for all 64 roles is on this website, free, before you buy. Candidates can appeal on seven grounds and a reviewer has to write reasons the candidate then sees. Extra-time adjustments are a first-class setting, not a favour. And the report is published in full.
What this meansThis is the ground we actually built for, and the one where the comparison is not close — largely because almost nobody else is standing on it.
The individual comparisons
Savvanta vs LinkedIn
Reach versus evidence, and why LinkedIn switched its own assessments off.
Savvanta vs Indeed
Volume at the top, nothing at the bottom — by Indeed's own product decision.
Savvanta vs TestGorilla
Snapshots every 30 seconds against a continuous recording, and what TestGorilla itself recommends instead.
Savvanta vs HackerRank
The closest comparison on the page, and the one where we concede the most.
Savvanta vs Codility
Optional proctoring versus a gate the employer cannot switch off.
Where we are behind
Stated once, here, rather than omitted from five pages.
- Library depth. HackerRank, Codility and TestGorilla have thousands of validated items and years of psychometric data behind them. We generate tasks per role. That is better fidelity and worse norm data, and if you need percentile benchmarks against a large population, buy theirs.
- Integrations. They plug into the major applicant tracking systems. We mostly do not yet.
- Self-serve. You can put a card in and start with them today. Our configured work needs a conversation first.
- Volume screening. A recorded, human-confirmed assessment is the wrong instrument for sifting 2,000 applicants down to 200. Use a cheap test for that and send us the 200.
Read the thing itself rather than a claim about it. The report an employer receives is published in full — real criteria, real weights, an invented candidate, and the conduct finding placed above the score. No form.
Read a sample reportOr browse the 64 mark schemesFrequently asked questions
Does Savvanta source candidates?
No. We have no job board and no searchable candidate database. Applicants reach you through LinkedIn, Indeed, your careers page, agencies or referrals, and Savvanta is what those applicants are pointed at.
Do I have to drop my existing assessment tool?
Not necessarily, and often you should not. A cheap library test is a good first sieve on a high-volume funnel. Savvanta is the deep evaluation you run on the shortlist that survives it.
Are these comparisons based on your own testing of competitors?
No. Every competitor claim on these pages is taken from that company's own public documentation and linked so you can check it. Where a vendor does not publish something, we say that rather than guess.
Why do the comparison pages list your weaknesses?
Because you will find them anyway, and a comparison page that only flatters the vendor who wrote it tells you nothing. The sections above are the honest answer to where these products beat us.