We may earn a commission if you buy through links on this page. It never changes a score or a ranking. How we make money
Criteria offers broad hiring and development features, including assessments and interviews, but its price is listed as n/a. Candidate concerns may also matter: Reddit posts describe applicants declining assessment requests, including one where the job listing reportedly had no salary. The alternatives below serve different needs, from technical screening to ATS and CRM workflows. None is presented here as a full replacement for every Criteria use case, so match the tool to what you actually need to replace.
01Why people leave Criteria
Assessment requests can deter candidates
One Reddit thread describes a candidate rejecting a Criteria assessment request. A commenter said they might consider one if salary and benefits were disclosed upfront.
Cognitive tests raise fairness concerns
In another Reddit discussion, a commenter said the CCAT can be especially hard for people whose second language is English and may exclude applicants.
Pricing is not published
Criteria is listed from n/a, so buyers cannot compare a public starting price. The alternatives also vary in price transparency, and several require a quote.
02The alternatives, ranked by fit
- Technical skills assessments
HackerRankHackerRankIf your main reason for using Criteria is testing technical candidates, HackerRank is the closest fit in this list. Its listed uses include structured technical screening, pair-programming interviews and assessing AI fluency. The listed starting price is $165, with a free plan, but the pricing is organized around attempt caps and candidate feedback is mixed.
Trade-off: Focused on technical hiring, not broad employee development.
5.9/10from
$165/mofree plan - ATS and recruiting CRM
CATSCATSCATS may fit teams that want to move routine recruiting work out of an assessment-focused tool and into a combined ATS and recruiting CRM. Its listed uses include automating candidate-stage workflows and tracking clients and applicants. The starting price is $95, with a per-user price to weigh as the team grows.
Trade-off: Per-user pricing can add up as the team grows.
6.5/10from
$95/mo - ATS and CRM teams
LeverLeverLever is worth comparing if your Criteria setup sits alongside separate applicant tracking and recruiting CRM tools. Its listed strengths include passive-candidate pipelines, hiring analytics and AI, giving recruiting teams a broader workflow option. The public listing does not provide a price, so ask for a quote before treating it as a lower-cost switch.
Trade-off: No public price is listed.
6.2/10from
Custom - Recruiting stack consolidation
AshbyAshbyAshby is aimed at teams consolidating recruiting tools or adding recruiting analytics to an existing ATS. That makes it a better fit when the switching goal is reducing tool sprawl, rather than replacing Criteria’s employee development features. The listing notes limits on its entry plan, while prices for larger plans are not public.
Trade-off: Entry-plan limits and larger-plan pricing need checking.
6.0/10from
$360/mo - Hiring task automation
ParadoxParadoxParadox is a fit for organizations trying to automate hiring tasks across multiple stages while keeping an existing system of record. That is a different approach from relying on assessments as the main candidate filter. The available listing describes broad recruiting automation, but does not publish prices or limits, so get both before comparing costs.
Trade-off: Pricing and limits are not published.
6.2/10from
Custom - Recruiting tool consolidation
GemGemGem suits teams replacing several recruiting tools while keeping their current ATS, rather than teams seeking a direct assessment-suite replacement. Its listing names startups with 1–10 FTE as a target and shows a $130 starting price with a free plan. Custom pricing remains opaque, so confirm the cost for the features you need.
Trade-off: Custom pricing makes the full cost hard to size.
7.0/10from
$130/mofree plan
03Side by side
| Tool | Score | From | Free plan | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Criteria Criteria (current) | 5.4 | Custom | No | Teams combining assessments and interviews |
| HackerRank HackerRank | 5.9 | $165/mo | Yes | Teams assessing AI fluency |
| CATS CATS | 6.5 | $95/mo | No | Recruiters needing ATS and CRM together |
| Lever Lever | 6.2 | Custom | No | Teams combining ATS and recruiting CRM |
| Ashby Ashby | 6.0 | $360/mo | No | Teams consolidating recruiting tools |
| Paradox Paradox | 6.2 | Custom | No | Organizations automating hiring tasks |
| Gem Gem | 7.0 | $130/mo | Yes | Startups with 1–10 FTE |
Questions people ask
How much does Criteria cost?
The published Criteria listing says from n/a, so we do not have a public starting price to compare. Listed alternative starting prices include CATS at $95, HackerRank at $165 with a free plan, and Gem at $130 with a free plan. Confirm current plan limits and quote details with each vendor.
Which Criteria alternative is best for assessments?
For technical hiring, HackerRank is the clearest fit among these options: its listed uses include structured technical screening, pair-programming interviews and assessing AI fluency. It is not described as a broad employee-development platform, so check whether it covers the assessment types and development work you need.
Why do candidates object to Criteria assessments?
Reddit posts describe candidates rejecting assessment requests, with one commenter saying salary and benefits would affect whether they took one. Other commenters raised concerns about cognitive tests and their impact on applicants, including people taking the test in a second language. These are reported opinions, not evidence that every candidate will react the same way.