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
None of the alternatives in this list is a like-for-like replacement for interviewing.io’s candidate mock-practice offer. HackerRank and Criteria cover technical assessments or interviews; the others are recruiting platforms for employers. That distinction matters before you switch. The pricing page puts interviewing.io at $179 with a free plan, while Reddit users report finding value in its free peer practice and recorded sessions. If your goal is candidate practice, this shortlist offers limited substitutes; if you’re buying for a hiring team, it gives you options to compare.
01Why people leave interviewing.io
Paid mocks feel hard to justify
A commenter questioned what one paid hour can change; another said they would not pay around $200 per mock again. Those are individual Reddit views, not a general verdict.
Free peer practice may be enough
Reddit users describe using interviewing.io’s peer interviews without paying. One commenter valued the recordings and code-editor playback; another preferred frequent peer mocks over expensive sessions.
You want more detailed feedback
A Reddit commenter argued that live mocks can help, but questioned whether a single session gives enough constructive feedback. Others praised interviewer quality, so experiences differ.
02The alternatives, ranked by fit
- Technical screening
HackerRankHackerRankHackerRank is the closest listed option if you’re actually choosing software for a hiring team: it covers pair-programming interviews and structured technical screening. The listing says it starts at $165 and has a free plan, with pricing around attempt caps. That is a different use case from buying mock practice as a candidate, so check whether it fits your role before switching.
Trade-off: It is a hiring platform, not a direct candidate mock-practice substitute.
5.9/10from
$165/mofree plan - Assessments and interviews
CriteriaCriteriaCriteria may suit employers who want assessments and interviews in one hiring setup, rather than a job seeker paying for practice. The listing also includes employee development tools. Pricing is not published, and the published summary flags candidate concerns, so ask for a quote and clarify what candidates experience before committing.
Trade-off: Custom pricing and candidate concerns make the value harder to judge.
5.4/10from
Custom - Recruiting teams
CATSCATSCATS is an ATS and recruiting CRM, aimed at recruiters who need candidate-stage workflows or agencies tracking clients and applicants. It is worth comparing only if you are leaving interviewing.io as an employer and need broader recruiting operations—not if you want another place to rehearse interviews. The listing says plans start at $95 per user.
Trade-off: It replaces recruiting workflows, not mock interviews.
6.5/10from
$95/mo - ATS and CRM
LeverLeverLever combines an ATS and recruiting CRM, with the listing also citing passive-candidate pipelines, hiring analytics and AI. That makes it a possible switch for an organization managing hiring, not for an individual candidate looking for practice. There is no public price on the pricing page, so get a quote before comparing its cost with interviewing.io.
Trade-off: No public price; it is not candidate interview coaching.
6.2/10from
Custom - Recruiting analytics
AshbyAshbyAshby is aimed at teams consolidating recruiting tools or adding recruiting analytics to an existing ATS. The pricing page gives a starting price of $360, while its summary says the $400-per-month entry plan has limits and larger plans hide their prices. Confirm the current plan and cap directly; Ashby does not replace candidate mock practice.
Trade-off: Plan limits and higher-tier pricing need confirmation.
6.0/10from
$360/mo - Hiring automation
ParadoxParadoxParadox is a potential alternative only if your reason for leaving is a need to automate employer-side hiring tasks across multiple stages while keeping an existing system of record. Its published summary describes broad recruiting automation, but pricing and limits are unpublished. Ask for both before treating it as a budget alternative to interviewing.io.
Trade-off: Unpublished pricing and limits; not a job-seeker practice tool.
6.2/10from
Custom
03Side by side
| Tool | Score | From | Free plan | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 interviewing.io interviewing.io (current) | 7.1 | $179/mo | Yes | Candidates who need live mock practice |
| HackerRank HackerRank | 5.9 | $165/mo | Yes | Teams assessing AI fluency |
| Criteria Criteria | 5.4 | Custom | No | Teams combining assessments and interviews |
| 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 |
Questions people ask
Is interviewing.io free?
The pricing page describes interviewing.io as having a free plan and starting at $179, but it does not specify what the free plan includes. One Reddit commenter said they used its peer-to-peer interviews without paying, and a thread mentioned a free pro interview offer at that time. Check the current pricing page for today’s terms.
How can you use AI while interviewing?
The material here does not explain whether interviewing.io or any listed alternative supports using AI during an interview. HackerRank’s listing mentions assessing AI fluency, which is a hiring-team use case, not evidence of an AI interview copilot for candidates. Check the product docs and the employer’s rules before using AI in a live interview.
What is a good alternative to interviewing.io?
For a candidate seeking mock practice, none of the published alternatives is a clear like-for-like replacement. The Reddit threads mention free peer practice, and the listing identifies HackerRank as a technical hiring platform. For employer-side recruiting, CATS, Lever, Ashby and Paradox cover broader recruiting workflows, but their use cases differ.