Outsource technical interviews to senior and FAANG level interviewers who assess against your bar, not theirs. Structured, proctored, scheduled around the clock for candidates anywhere, and returned as a written report with skill-level scores and a hire or no hire recommendation.
Interview as a service means outsourcing your technical interview rounds to experienced external interviewers. Senior engineers run structured, proctored interviews against a scorecard agreed with your hiring manager, then return a written report with skill-level scores, the evidence behind each score, and a hire or no hire recommendation. Your team reads the report and makes the decision.
The distinction from a recruiting agency matters. We are not sourcing candidates, we do not represent them, and no placement fee rides on the outcome, so a no hire recommendation costs us nothing to give. Our only product is an accurate read on someone you found yourself.
The distinction from an automated coding test also matters. A test scores the artefact a candidate produced; a live expert round sees the reasoning that produced it, how they respond when a constraint changes, and whether they can explain a trade-off to someone who disagrees. Most teams run both, with cheap automated filtering first and expert rounds on the shortlist that survives it.
What stays with you is the final conversation. We assess against your bar, but we do not know your team's working dynamics, and no external interviewer can tell you whether someone will thrive under your specific management. That round is yours, and it is also the one where the candidate decides whether they want to work with you.
Count what a technical loop actually costs you. Each stage is an hour in the room, plus preparation, plus the debrief, plus writing up feedback, and every one of those hours belongs to a senior engineer. Multiply by four stages and then by however many candidates you need to see before one works out, and a single opening has quietly consumed a meaningful slice of your delivery capacity. Teams notice the calendar damage; what they usually miss is the second cost, which is that interviewing is nobody's main job and therefore nobody's practised skill.
That produces the failure mode that actually hurts. The same role gets a hard interview on Tuesday and a friendly chat on Thursday, one interviewer probes system design while another asks trivia, and the debrief becomes an argument about impressions because there was no shared standard to argue against. Candidates in other timezones wait days for a slot, and the strong ones accept something else while waiting. When volume rises, quality is the first thing quietly traded away.
We supply the interviewers. Senior engineers who interview as their profession, calibrated against a bar you define, running the same structured loop for every candidate and writing it up the same way each time. Your engineers get their week back, and the signal you make decisions on becomes something you can compare across candidates and defend later.
Structured evaluations led by senior engineers and FAANG level interviewers, matched to the stack and seniority of the role rather than whoever happened to be free.
Frontend, backend, full stack, database engineering, data science, DevOps and cloud, quality assurance, and automation testing, with interviewers who work in those areas.
An optional pre-interview stage using AI proctoring, plagiarism detection, and standardised evaluation to identify job ready candidates in minutes before anyone's time is booked.
A continuously updated bank tuned per role, so candidates for the same opening face equivalent problems without the questions leaking into practice forums.
Candidates anywhere book into an available slot in their own timezone, which removes the multi-day scheduling round trip that loses people to competing offers.
Skill level scores, interviewer feedback, strengths, improvement areas, and a clear hire or no hire recommendation, delivered per candidate in a comparable format.
Before any interviewing starts we agree what a hire looks like at your company. That means the competencies the role genuinely requires, the level expected at each one, and worked examples of answers you would consider weak, borderline, and strong. Without that artefact an outsourced interview is just a stranger's opinion, which is not better than your own team's opinion and is arguably worse.
Interviewers are then calibrated against it. New interviewers shadow before they lead, early reports are reviewed against the agreed standard, and scoring is periodically compared across interviewers on the same role to catch drift. Where two interviewers would reach different conclusions about the same performance, that is a calibration defect and we treat it as one rather than as a difference of style.
The report is written to be argued with. Each competency carries a score, the evidence that produced it, and what the candidate did or did not demonstrate, so your hiring manager can disagree with a specific judgement instead of accepting or dismissing a verdict. Because the same structure is used for every candidate on a role, you can compare the fourth candidate against the first honestly, and you have documentation if a rejection is ever questioned.
How a defensible loop is built
When the only people qualified to interview are the ones you cannot spare.
Your first data or DevOps hire, assessed by someone who has done the job.
Dozens of candidates for one role without the bar sliding as fatigue sets in.
Interview slots available across timezones instead of one shared working window.
An independent, structured read when your panel cannot reach agreement.
Use the scorecards and reports as the template your team eventually runs itself.
Scale interview capacity without taking the quarter out of your delivery roadmap.
When debriefs keep turning into arguments about impressions rather than evidence.
An independent technical read you can attach to a submission without borrowing client engineers.
Each of these produces a different kind of signal at a different cost. The mistake is treating them as substitutes when they work best stacked in sequence: cheap automated filtering first, expert human assessment second, your team last.
| Consideration | Interview as a Service | Your own engineers interview | AI screening only |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering hours consumed | Close to zero. Your team reads reports and interviews the finalists | Every stage costs prep, interview, debrief, and write-up time from a senior engineer | Zero. Nobody on your side attends |
| Depth of signal | Deep. Live problem solving, architecture discussion, and follow-up on how someone thinks | Deep when the interviewer is practised, shallow when it is their third interview ever | Adequate for filtering. Verifies claimed skills and communication, not senior judgement |
| Consistency across candidates | High. Same scorecard, calibrated interviewers, cross-reviewed scoring | Low to moderate. Varies by interviewer, by day, and by how the previous meeting went | Very high. The machine does not get tired or distracted |
| Cost per interview | Quoted per loop, driven by seniority, stage count, and turnaround | Loaded cost of senior engineering time, which is the most expensive option and the least visible | $5 per AI screening interview, plus $0.10 per resume ranked |
| Scalability | Scales with interviewer supply, so a hundred candidates does not mean a hundred internal hours | Does not scale. Volume comes straight out of your delivery roadmap | Effectively unlimited and parallel |
| Time to first available slot | Candidates self-book around the clock in their own timezone | Constrained by your engineers' calendars, which is where days of delay accumulate | Immediate, with no scheduling step at all |
| Judging fit with your team | Partial. We assess against your bar but we do not know your team's working dynamics | Strong. This is the part your engineers should keep | None. It is not attempting to |
| Defensibility if a rejection is questioned | Strong. Identical structure per candidate, with every score citing specific evidence | Depends entirely on whether anyone wrote contemporaneous notes | Strong on consistency, though limited to what a screening round can observe |
| Candidate perception | A serious technical conversation with a credible engineer, scheduled when they are free | Meeting the team, which is genuinely persuasive when it goes well | Fast and fair, but clearly software rather than a colleague |
| When it is the right call | The middle rounds, where depth matters and internal time is scarce | The final round, culture and collaboration, and closing the candidate | The top of the funnel, where you need to get from 400 applicants to 20 |
Most teams run all three: automated screening to filter, our interviewers for the technical rounds, and their own engineers for the final conversation and the offer.
Interview loops are quoted per engagement rather than sold off a price list, because a two-stage screen for a mid-level frontend role and a five-stage staff engineer loop are not the same product. Everything with a published rate is listed here as well.
Expert interview loop
Senior interviewers running your technical rounds, priced against the loop you need.
QuickScreen assessment
Proctored pre-interview filtering so expert time is spent on plausible candidates only.
AI screening add-on
Automated first-round screening ahead of the human loop, at a published rate.
Full-service recruiting
The whole search handled, with interviewing included rather than bought separately.
What drives the interview quote: interviewer seniority, number of stages in the loop, expected monthly volume, turnaround time on reports, and whether QuickScreen sits in front of the loop. The applicant tracking system that holds the candidates, notes, and reports is free with unlimited seats.
We build the scorecard with your hiring manager: competencies, level expectations, and what a strong answer looks like.
Optional proctored assessments identify job ready candidates in minutes, so expert time is not spent filtering.
A matched interviewer runs the structured round in the candidate's timezone, available around the clock.
Skill level scores, evidence, strengths, improvement areas, and a hire or no hire recommendation per candidate.
A structured interview loop is a fixed sequence of interviews where every candidate for a role faces the same competencies, assessed against the same written standard, by interviewers who know in advance which competency they own. The opposite, and still the default at most companies, is an unstructured loop: several smart people have a conversation, form an impression, and vote in a debrief.
The structure is not bureaucracy. It exists because unstructured interviews measure the interviewer as much as the candidate. Two capable engineers assessing the same person will reach different conclusions if they asked different questions, and neither can explain the gap afterwards because there was no rubric to point at. Structure converts a set of impressions into evidence, which is what makes a debrief a decision rather than a negotiation between confident people.
Consistency matters more than difficulty, and this is the point most teams get backwards. A famously hard interview that varies between candidates tells you very little: you cannot tell whether candidate three was worse than candidate one or simply got the harder problem from a tired interviewer. A moderately hard interview run identically for everyone tells you a great deal, because differences in performance are differences in the candidate. Cranking up difficulty mostly filters for interview practice and confidence, which correlate with neither engineering ability nor tenure.
Structure also protects the candidate, which is worth saying because it is usually framed only as an employer benefit. A candidate in a structured loop knows what is being assessed, faces the same problems as everyone else applying, and receives a decision grounded in something they did rather than in whether the interviewer liked them. Unstructured loops reward familiarity, confidence, and shared background, which is precisely the set of traits you were not trying to select for.
There is a real limit worth stating. A structured loop measures how someone reasons, builds, and communicates under observation. It cannot tell you how they behave after month six, whether they will thrive under your specific management, or how they handle a bad quarter. That is why the final conversation should stay with your own team, and why we hand back evidence and a recommendation rather than making the hiring decision for you.
If you want to build this internally rather than buy it, the order of work is the same: write the scorecard first, assign one competency per interviewer, use a question bank rather than personal favourites, require every score to cite evidence, and compare scoring across interviewers periodically. The reason teams outsource is rarely that they cannot design the loop. It is that running it consumes the engineers they need for everything else.
The single question that decides whether outsourced interviewing works is who is in the room. An external interviewer who does not work in the candidate's domain produces a stranger's opinion, which is not better than your own team's opinion and is arguably worse, because at least your team knows the job.
Our interviewers are senior engineers and FAANG level interviewers who interview as their profession rather than as an interruption to their sprint. That difference matters more than it sounds. An engineer who runs three interviews a year is, by definition, unpractised: they ask the question they were asked in 2019, they follow up inconsistently, and they write the feedback from memory two days later. An interviewer who does this daily has calibrated instincts about what a strong answer at a given level looks like, because they have seen several hundred of them.
Matching is by stack and by seniority, not by availability. A staff-level backend candidate is assessed by someone who has built backend systems at that scale, and a data engineering candidate is assessed by someone who works in data. Coverage spans more than 500 technical skills across frontend, backend, full stack, database engineering, data science, DevOps and cloud infrastructure, quality assurance, and automation testing.
Before anyone runs your loop they are calibrated against your scorecard. New interviewers shadow before they lead, early reports are reviewed against the agreed standard, and scoring is periodically compared across interviewers assessing the same role. Where two interviewers would reach different conclusions about the same performance, we treat that as a calibration defect to fix rather than as a difference of style to tolerate.
This is also the answer to the fairness question people ask about external interviewers. They arrive without the context that skews internal panels: they do not know who referred the candidate, which competitor they came from, or what the hiring manager said about them in standup. That is a structural advantage rather than a guarantee, which is why the reports stay auditable and the decision stays with you.
A structured round is not a script read aloud. It is a fixed set of competencies, a fixed difficulty band, and a fixed way of recording what happened, with genuine conversation inside that frame. Every candidate for a role faces the same competencies so their performances can be compared; the specific problem and the follow-ups adapt to the person in front of the interviewer.
A round generally opens with a short orientation so the candidate knows how long they have, what will be assessed, and that they can ask clarifying questions. This is not politeness for its own sake. Candidates who do not know the rules spend the first ten minutes guessing at them, and you end up measuring their tolerance for ambiguity in an interview rather than their ability to do the job.
The core of the round is a problem in the candidate's domain, worked live, with the interviewer probing the reasoning rather than waiting for the answer. The point is to see how someone decomposes an unfamiliar problem, what they check before committing, how they respond when a constraint changes, and whether they can explain a trade-off to someone who disagrees. A candidate who reaches a working solution by guessing and a candidate who reaches it by reasoning look identical on a pass or fail test and completely different in a live round.
Questions come from a continuously updated bank tuned per role, so two candidates for the same opening face equivalent problems without those problems leaking into practice forums. A famous interview question that everyone has rehearsed measures rehearsal, not ability, which is why a stale question bank quietly destroys the signal it was built to produce.
Rounds are proctored, and where QuickScreen sits in front of the live loop it adds AI proctoring, plagiarism detection, and a standardised evaluation so that expert interviewer time is spent on plausible candidates rather than on filtering. The round closes with the interviewer writing up the evidence while it is fresh, against the scorecard, in the same structure used for every other candidate on that role.
The scorecard comes first, before any interviewing starts. We build it with your hiring manager, and it is the artefact everything else depends on. It names the competencies the role genuinely requires, the level expected at each one, and worked examples of answers you would consider weak, borderline, and strong. Without it, an outsourced interview is an opinion. With it, an outsourced interview is a measurement against a standard you defined.
Writing it is the part teams resist and the part that pays for itself. Most hiring managers discover, halfway through describing what a strong answer looks like, that two people on their own team hold different views of the bar. Better to find that out on a call with us than in a debrief where a candidate is waiting.
The report that comes back mirrors the scorecard. Each competency carries a skill-level score, the evidence that produced it, and what the candidate did or did not demonstrate. Then there are strengths, improvement areas, interviewer feedback in plain language, and a clear hire or no hire recommendation.
It is written to be argued with, which is the property that matters. A verdict with no evidence forces your hiring manager to either accept it or dismiss it whole. A report that quotes what the candidate actually said lets them disagree with one specific judgement, keep the rest, and make a better decision than either party would have made alone. Because the same structure is used for every candidate on a role, you can compare the fourth candidate against the first honestly, and you have documentation if a rejection is ever questioned.
Most hiring processes do not lose time in interviews. They lose it between them. A candidate finishes a screen on Tuesday, the next interviewer has no slot until the following week, the debrief slips because two people are travelling, and by the time an offer is drafted the candidate has accepted something else. None of that delay is caused by the interview itself, and none of it shows up when teams measure their process.
Scheduling is the first fix. Candidates self-book into an available slot in their own timezone, with availability around the clock, rather than waiting on a reply from someone whose calendar is already full. That removes the multi-day round trip that normally sits between rounds, and it removes it for candidates in every timezone rather than only the ones who happen to share your working window.
Report turnaround is agreed as part of the engagement rather than left to chance, and it is one of the variables that drives the quote alongside interviewer seniority, the number of stages in the loop, and expected monthly volume. If you need reports back faster because you are competing for candidates who are running three processes at once, say so when we scope the work and it will be priced accordingly.
The part you still own is the decision. Reports arriving quickly only helps if somebody reads them quickly, so the teams that move fastest agree in advance who reviews a report, within how long, and what happens when they disagree. That is not something we can outsource for you, but it is worth naming, because a fast loop with a slow decision is still a slow process.
Automated coding tests and live expert interviews are often presented as competitors, and treating them that way leads teams to buy the wrong one. They measure different things, and the sensible arrangement is to stack them rather than choose between them.
A coding test is cheap, parallel, and consistent. It verifies that someone can produce working code against a specification, and it does so for a hundred candidates simultaneously without anyone's calendar being involved. That is genuinely valuable at the top of a funnel where you need to get from four hundred applicants to a manageable number, and our QuickScreen assessment and $5 AI screening interviews occupy exactly that slot.
What a test cannot see is the reasoning. It scores the artefact, not the path to it, so a candidate who arrived at a correct answer by pattern-matching a memorised problem and a candidate who reasoned their way there score identically. It cannot ask why a trade-off was chosen, cannot change a constraint mid-problem to see how someone adapts, and cannot tell you whether the person can explain their thinking to a colleague who disagrees. It also rewards test practice, which is a skill some strong engineers have never bothered to acquire.
A live expert round is the opposite profile: expensive per candidate, not infinitely parallel, and able to see everything a test cannot. Architecture discussion, decomposition of an unfamiliar problem, response to changing requirements, and the quality of technical communication only surface in conversation. That is why it belongs in the middle of the loop, after cheap filtering has done its work and before your own team spends its time.
The practical stack is automated screening first, expert human interviews second, and your own engineers last for culture, collaboration, and the conversation that closes the candidate. Each stage is cheaper per candidate than the one after it, which is the whole point of ordering them this way.
Hiring is rarely a steady flow. A funding round, a new contract, an annual graduate intake, or a team that suddenly has to double will produce a quarter where you need to interview more people than your engineers can absorb. This is the situation the service was built for, and it is worth being specific about why.
The problem with a burst is not that interviewing is hard. It is that interviewing capacity is fixed in the short term and comes straight out of your delivery roadmap. You cannot hire interviewers to help you hire, and asking your senior engineers to run four loops a week for two months means whatever they were building does not ship. Teams usually respond by quietly lowering the bar, because the alternative is admitting the roadmap slipped, and a bar that slides under pressure is the most expensive form of hiring debt there is.
Outsourced interviewing scales with interviewer supply rather than with your headcount, so a hundred candidates does not mean a hundred internal hours. The bar stays where you set it, because it lives in the scorecard rather than in whoever is least tired that afternoon. Your team's involvement stays roughly constant: they read reports and run the final conversations.
There is a second, less obvious benefit. A burst is when interview quality degrades most, and it is also when you can least afford a bad hire, because a fast-growing team has less slack to absorb one. Running the same structured loop for candidate forty as for candidate one is exactly what you want when the pressure to just fill the seat is highest.
When the burst ends, there is nothing to unwind. You are not left with interviewer headcount you no longer need, and the scorecards you built during the burst are reusable the next time the same role opens. Several teams use them as the template their own engineers eventually run internally, which is a perfectly good outcome and one we are happy to support.
It lets a company outsource its technical interviews to experienced external interviewers. We run structured, role specific interviews against a bar agreed with you, and return detailed evaluation reports so your team can decide without spending their own engineering hours on the loop.
The distinction from a recruiting agency is that we are not sourcing or representing candidates and have no placement fee riding on the outcome. Our only job is to produce an accurate read, which means a no hire recommendation costs us nothing to give.
Interview loops are quoted per engagement. The variables are interviewer seniority, how many stages the loop has, monthly volume, report turnaround, and whether QuickScreen assessments sit in front of the live rounds. A single mid-level screening round and a staff engineer system design loop are priced very differently.
Compare it against the alternative honestly. Work out what an internal loop costs by multiplying your engineers' loaded hourly cost by the prep, interview, debrief, and write-up time each stage consumes. That number is real even though it never appears on an invoice, which is the only reason it feels free. Published rates alongside this service are $5 per AI screening interview, $0.10 per resume ranked, a free applicant tracking system, and 10% retainer plus 20% placement fee for full-service recruiting.
Senior engineers and FAANG level interviewers with working experience across frontend, backend, full stack, databases, data science, DevOps, cloud infrastructure, and quality assurance. Interviewers are matched to the stack and seniority of the role, so a staff-level backend candidate is not assessed by a generalist.
Every interviewer is calibrated against your scorecard before running your loop, shadows before leading, and has their scoring cross-reviewed against other interviewers on the same role. Coverage spans over 500 technical skills.
The scorecard is built with your hiring manager before any interviewing starts. It names the competencies the role genuinely requires, the level expected at each one, and worked examples of answers you would consider weak, borderline, and strong. That last part is what turns a vague bar into something two different interviewers can apply the same way.
It is yours, not ours. You can take it with you, hand it to your own engineers, and run the loop internally later. Several teams use our scorecards and reports as the template for the interview process they eventually run themselves, and we would rather that than keep the standard as a black box.
It replaces the middle of the loop, not the end of it. We take the technical assessment rounds, which are the expensive, repeatable ones. You should keep the final conversation, because judging how someone will work with your specific team is something only your team can do.
Nothing stops you sitting in as an observer, and some hiring managers do for the first few candidates to confirm the bar is where they expected. After that most teams switch to reading reports.
A coding test scores the artefact; a live expert round sees the reasoning that produced it. A test cannot ask why a trade-off was chosen, cannot change a constraint mid-problem to see how someone adapts, and cannot tell you whether the candidate can explain their thinking to a colleague who disagrees. It also rewards practice at taking tests, which some strong engineers have never acquired.
They are complements rather than alternatives. Use automated screening, including our QuickScreen assessment and $5 AI screening interviews, to get from hundreds of applicants to a shortlist. Use expert live rounds on that shortlist, where depth matters and each candidate is worth real time.
Turnaround is agreed as part of the engagement rather than left open, and it is one of the variables that drives the quote alongside interviewer seniority, stage count, and monthly volume. If you are competing for candidates who are running three processes at once, tell us when we scope the work and faster turnaround is priced in.
Scheduling is usually the bigger saving. Candidates self-book into an available slot in their own timezone with availability around the clock, which removes the multi-day round trip that normally sits between rounds. The remaining bottleneck is your own review, so it is worth agreeing in advance who reads a report and within how long.
Consistency comes from structure: the same competencies, the same difficulty band, and the same rubric for everyone applying to a role, with scores that must cite what the candidate actually did. Interviewers who drift from the agreed standard show up when scoring is compared across the same role, and are recalibrated.
External interviewers also carry less of the context that skews internal panels, since they do not know who referred the candidate, which competitor they came from, or what the hiring manager said in standup. That is a structural advantage rather than a guarantee, so reports stay auditable and the final decision stays with you.
Yes, and it is the situation the service is most useful for. Interviewing capacity scales with interviewer supply rather than with your engineering headcount, so a hundred candidates in a quarter does not translate into a hundred internal hours or a delayed roadmap.
It also protects the bar at the moment it is most at risk. Teams under volume pressure quietly lower the standard because the alternative is admitting the roadmap slipped. Because the bar lives in the scorecard rather than in whoever is least tired that afternoon, candidate forty is assessed the same way as candidate one. When the burst ends there is no interviewer headcount to unwind.
Candidates book a slot themselves, in their own timezone, with availability around the clock, which removes the days of scheduling email that usually sit between rounds. They speak to a working senior engineer who understands their domain, and they get a consistent, professional interview rather than whatever their assigned interviewer improvised that morning.
The trade-off worth being clear about is that they do not meet your team in that round, so it does little to sell the role. That is one more reason the final conversation should be yours: it is where the candidate decides whether they want to work with you.
You have the evidence to answer them. Every score cites what the candidate actually said or built, in a report structured identically to every other report for that role, so you can point to a specific judgement rather than to an impression formed in a debrief.
This is a large part of why structure is worth the effort. An unstructured loop leaves you with recollections and a vote, which is difficult to explain to a candidate and harder to defend if a rejection is ever formally questioned.
The service is built for technical interviewing, with coverage across more than 500 technical skills including frontend, backend, full stack, database engineering, data science, DevOps and cloud, quality assurance, and automation testing. Interviewers are matched to the stack, which is the whole basis of the signal.
For non-technical roles, the better fit is usually structured AI screening at $5 per interview, which generates its scorecard from your job description and works across support, sales, operations, and marketing. If you would rather hand over the entire search, full-service recruiting covers any function.
Reports, scores, and recommendations land on the candidate record in the HireCade applicant tracking system, which is free with unlimited jobs, candidates, and team seats, so every hiring manager and interviewer can read them without a licence conversation.
If you use another ATS, we deliver reports in a format your team can attach to the candidate record there, and coordinate scheduling directly with your recruiters. The service does not require you to migrate anything.
The first thing we do is go back to the report. Because scores are tied to specific evidence, it is usually possible to see whether the loop missed something, whether the scorecard described the job inaccurately, or whether the issue was outside what any interview can measure. Scorecards get corrected on the basis of that review, which is the part that improves future hiring.
We do not charge a placement fee here, so there is no fee to refund. Where a hire came through full-service recruiting, replacement terms are agreed in writing before the search starts. What we will not do is claim an interview process can guarantee an outcome that depends on management, onboarding, and the work itself.
Interviewing is the middle of a hiring process. These pages cover what comes before it, the references that help you set a bar worth interviewing against, and what it takes to employ the candidate once your team says yes.
Rank resumes at $0.10 each and run $5 AI screening interviews, so expert rounds start from a real shortlist.
Where scorecards, reports, and recommendations live, with unlimited jobs, candidates, and team seats.
A free curated shortlist every Monday, for when the shortage is candidates rather than interview capacity.
The full engineering search, from sourcing through to offer, with the interview loop handled for you.
Screening, interviewing, employment, immigration, and device management in one place.
Level definitions to anchor a scorecard, so the loop tests the seniority the role actually needs.
How progression frameworks map across companies, useful when a candidate's title does not match their scope.
Check the offer is competitive before you spend interviewer time on candidates you cannot close.
The kinds of questions candidates prepare against, and a useful reference when writing competencies.
What structured technical interviewing looks like from the candidate's side of the call.
Employ your hire in a country where you have no entity, at $499 per employee per month.
Engage genuinely independent contractors compliantly, with classification liability handled for you.
Visa and relocation support when the candidate who cleared your loop needs the right to work.
Laptop procurement, provisioning, and access control so a new hire is equipped on day one.
Every published rate in one place, including AI screening, recruiting fees, and Employer of Record.
HireCade helped us reduce our hiring cycle by more than 50 percent. The interview insights were better than in house interviews.
We scaled technical hiring without overloading our engineers. This service transformed our recruitment process.
Tell us the role and the bar you hire against. We will put calibrated interviewers on your loop and send back reports your hiring manager can act on.
