Top 15 Test Partnership Alternatives and Competitors

Test Partnership (testpartnership.com) is a UK psychometric test publisher, founded in 2012, best known for validated cognitive and personality assessments and gamified, AI-resistant question formats. The strongest alternatives to it split into three groups: broad skills-assessment platforms that measure far more than psychometrics, technical-testing tools built specifically for engineering hiring, and enterprise psychometric suites that arrive with consulting attached.

Teams usually go looking for a replacement for one of three reasons. The test library is narrower than a growing hiring team needs once it starts hiring outside head-office roles. The pricing model does not fit a company that hires in bursts. Or the candidate experience feels dated next to platforms that have rebuilt screening around conversational AI and work-sample tasks.

This guide covers 15 options, what each one is genuinely good at, where it falls short, and what it costs where the vendor publishes a price. Every Testlify figure below comes from the live Testlify pricing page.

TL;DR

• Testlify is the closest like-for-like swap if you want psychometrics plus skills, coding and AI interviewing in one tool rather than three.
• Pick a technical-testing platform (Codility, Coderbyte, TestDome) only if engineering is the majority of your hiring. They are narrow by design.
• Enterprise psychometric suites (Mercer Mettl, TalentLens) buy you research depth and consulting, and they cost accordingly. Most publish no price at all.
• Psychometrics are not the only defensible signal. Structured interviews, job-knowledge tests and work samples all hold up in the selection-science literature.
• The cheapest platform is rarely the cheapest decision. Credit expiry, seat limits and paid add-ons move the real annual cost more than the headline number does.

What are the top Test Partnership software alternatives?

The top Test Partnership software alternatives are Testlify, TestGorilla, Adaface, Vervoe and Mercer Mettl. Testlify suits teams that want psychometric, skills and coding tests plus AI interviewing in one platform. TestGorilla and Adaface compete on library breadth and candidate experience. Mercer Mettl fits regulated, high-volume enterprise hiring where proctoring depth matters most.

Which one wins depends less on feature counts than on how you hire. A 40-person agency filling six roles a year and a bank running graduate intakes are not shopping for the same product, even though both are technically psychometric-testing buyers.

How do Test Partnership competitors compare?

How were these Test Partnership alternatives evaluated?

Four criteria, weighted in this order.

1. Measurement quality. Does the platform publish how its tests are built and scored, or does it just count questions?
2. Coverage against your real roles. A psychometric battery is useless for a role that needs a spreadsheet task and a customer email.
3. Cost predictability. Credit expiry, seat caps and paid add-ons decide the annual bill more often than the sticker price.
4. Candidate experience. Drop-off during screening is a hiring cost that never shows up on the invoice.

Pro tip: before you compare vendors, write down the three roles you hire most and the evidence you would accept for each. Half the shortlist usually disqualifies itself in ten minutes.

What are the alternatives to psychometric tests for hiring?

Psychometrics are one signal, not the only defensible one. The 2022 reanalysis of selection-method validity by Sackett, Zhang, Berry and Lievens revised many long-quoted validity estimates downward and placed structured interviews among the strongest predictors of job performance, while years of education and general experience landed among the weakest. The exact coefficients are still argued over in print. The ranking is the part that survives every reanalysis.

So the practical alternatives to a psychometric test are structured interviews with a fixed question set and a scoring rubric, job-knowledge tests, and work samples that mirror the actual task. Each measures something a personality inventory cannot.

One caution about how the results get used. A meta-analysis by Kuncel and colleagues found that mechanically combining assessment data predicts outcomes at least as well as experts recombining the same information by judgement. Collecting good evidence and then overriding it in the debrief undoes the work.

There is also a legal floor. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidance on employment tests and selection procedures requires that any selection test be job-related and consistent with business necessity, whichever vendor supplies it. Buying a validated instrument does not transfer that obligation to the vendor.

1. Testlify

Testlify is an AI-assisted, human-led assessment and interviewing platform. It covers the psychometric ground Test Partnership occupies, then keeps going into skills tests, coding, work samples and AI interviews, which is the main reason teams consolidate onto it rather than running a test publisher and a screening tool side by side.

Key features

• Test library: 3,500+ tests and 180,000+ validated questions covering 4,500+ roles across 50+ industries, including psychometric, cognitive ability, personality and culture, situational judgement and role-specific categories.
• 25+ question types: ranking, fill-in-the-blank, typing tests scored on 60% accuracy and 40% speed, and live tasks inside Google Docs, Sheets, Slides, Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Coding questions run in an embedded VS Code editor with up to 20 test cases, and vibe-coding tasks ask candidates to direct AI tools to a working solution instead of writing syntax by hand.
• Item-level psychometrics: difficulty index, discrimination index and a quality-risk flag per question, so you can see which items are actually doing the measuring.
• AI checker: classifies an answer as human, AI generated or mixed, and distinguishes fully generated text from partially AI-edited text.
• Dual-device proctoring: the candidate's phone becomes a second camera showing both the candidate and the laptop screen. The session will not start until mobile monitoring is active.
• AI interviewing: one-way async video, two-way conversational AI video, voice, and outbound AI phone interviews with selectable avatars and voices, attempt and recording limits, automatic multilingual transcripts, and auto-scoring a reviewer can override.

Pros

• Psychometrics, skills, coding and interviewing in one platform instead of three subscriptions.
• AI scores ship with the disclaimer that they are guidance only, and including the AI score in the final average is itself a toggle, so scoring can run purely advisory.
• 100+ ATS integrations for teams that already run Greenhouse, Lever or Workday, plus a simple built-in hiring pipeline for teams that run no ATS at all.

Cons

• Chromium desktop only. Candidates on Safari or Firefox have to switch browsers, and the mobile app is a recording fallback rather than a way to sit a whole assessment on a phone.
• It does not schedule live human interview panels, so calendar coordination stays wherever it lives today.
• ATS integrations, white labelling and SSO are paid add-ons on the self-serve tiers at $2,388 per year each, not bundled.

Best for

Teams under roughly 200 people who want psychometric rigour without buying a separate publisher, and who hire across mixed role types rather than one function.

Testlify pricing

Billed annually: Starter at $139/month ($1,668/year) for 100 credits, $16.68 per credit, 3 seats. Basic at $279/month ($3,348/year) for 300 credits, $11.16 per credit, 5 seats. Business at $699/month ($8,388/year) for 1,000 credits, $8.39 per credit, 10 seats. Premium (3,000 credits, 20 seats), Enterprise (10,000 credits, 30 seats) and Custom (25,000+ credits, 40 seats) are quoted by sales. Monthly billing is a separate ladder, starting at $198/month for 10 credits.

One credit is consumed per started assessment and credits do not roll over. Extra seats are $15 per seat per month. There is a 7-day free trial with no card, a 30-day money-back guarantee, prices locked for 24 months, and a 25% non-profit discount.

2. TestGorilla

TestGorilla built its reputation on library breadth and a simple, fast setup. For a generalist hiring team that wants one test per role and no consulting engagement, it remains one of the easiest platforms to get live in an afternoon.

Key features

• Role-based test library spanning cognitive ability, personality, culture add, language and software skills.
• Open-ended video questions for communication and customer-facing roles.
• Anonymised results and standardised scoring to reduce reviewer bias.
• Branding controls over test order, difficulty and timing.

Pros

• A genuine free plan, which very few assessment vendors still offer.
• Fast to configure without specialist psychometric support.

Cons

• The legacy Starter and Pro plans were retired in July 2025, so older price comparisons no longer apply.
• Custom test creation and ATS integrations sit on the top tier, which raises the entry cost for teams that need either.

Best for

Generalist screening across many role types where breadth matters more than psychometric depth.

Pricing

A free plan with a small number of tests and one seat, then a Core tier at roughly $142/month billed annually and a Plus tier from about $4,800 a year. Pay-as-you-go monthly billing is no longer sold to new customers.

3. Adaface

Adaface replaced the multiple-choice grid with a chat interface. Its assessments run as a conversation with an AI agent, which tends to hold candidate attention longer than a 40-question form does.

Key features

• Conversational assessments delivered through a chatbot rather than a static form.
• 150+ pre-built templates across engineering, finance, support and operations.
• Automatic pass, borderline and fail banding to cut manual review.
• Questions authored in house and re-tested against public AI tools each month.

Pros

• Completion rates benefit from the format, which matters when candidates are scarce.
• Transparent published pricing across a wide range of volumes.

Cons

• Lighter on formal psychometric instruments than a dedicated test publisher.
• The jump between tiers is steep once you pass a few hundred candidates a year.

Best for

Technical and semi-technical screening where candidate drop-off is the binding constraint.

Pricing

Published annual plans run from an Individual tier at $180/year through Starter, Pro, Scale and Growth tiers, up to Enterprise and Unlimited plans in the $20,000 to $50,000 range. A free trial is available.

4. Vervoe

Vervoe's premise is merit over resumes: watch candidates do the job rather than answer questions about it. Its AI grades and ranks open-ended responses, which is a different proposition from scoring a fixed key.

Key features

• Job simulations across customer support, sales, marketing, technology and operations.
• Answer formats including text, video, file upload and spreadsheets.
• AI grading that ranks responses on accuracy, effort and relevance.
• Shared review workspace for multiple assessors.

Pros

• Strong signal for roles where output quality is visible and gradeable.
• Per-candidate pricing suits uneven hiring cycles.

Cons

• Simulation content takes real effort to author well.
• Not a substitute for validated cognitive or personality instruments.

Best for

Roles where a work sample beats a questionnaire, and hiring volume is lumpy.

Pricing

Pay as you go, priced per candidate and quoted on request. Published entry pricing changes frequently, so treat any figure you find in a round-up as indicative.

5. Codility

Codility is built for engineering recruitment at scale and makes no attempt to be a general assessment platform. If your hiring problem is 400 developer applications a quarter, that focus is the point.

Key features

• 1,100+ coding tasks across 45+ programming languages.
• Live collaborative technical interviews in a shared IDE with a compiler and test runner.
• Automated assessment of correctness, efficiency and readability.
• Task-level reports with test cases passed and code-quality scores.

Pros

• Depth of technical content that generalist platforms do not match.
• Reporting designed for engineering managers, not just recruiters.

Cons

• No psychometric or behavioural coverage, so it cannot replace Test Partnership on its own.
• Priced for teams hiring engineers continuously.

Best for

Engineering-heavy organisations running structured technical funnels.

Pricing

Annual licence tiers plus a custom enterprise plan, quoted on request.

6. Mercer Mettl

Mercer Mettl is the closest thing on this list to an enterprise psychometric suite, and it is used heavily for campus recruitment and professional certification as well as hiring.

Key features

• 200+ job-specific assessments across technical, cognitive, behavioural and psychometric domains.
• Proctoring with face recognition, browser lockdown and live human invigilation.
• Assessment branding down to a dedicated test domain.
• Competency scoring with percentile comparisons and hiring recommendations.

Pros

• Research-backed content and proctoring depth suited to regulated hiring.
• Handles campus intakes and certification programmes as well as recruitment.

Cons

• No published pricing, so evaluation starts with a sales cycle.
• Heavier to configure than a self-serve platform.

Best for

Regulated industries and campus programmes assessing thousands of candidates a year.

Pricing

Quote only, based on test count, candidate volume and feature mix.

7. iMocha

iMocha positions itself past hiring and into workforce skills intelligence, mapping what an existing workforce can do rather than only screening applicants.

Key features

• 3,000+ ready-to-use tests mapped against a large skills taxonomy.
• Custom test builder with flexible scoring logic.
• An AI interviewer for conversational, chat-based assessment.
• Reporting by domain, skill group and question category.

Pros

• Useful when the same platform has to serve hiring and internal mobility.
• Deep coverage of specialised technical and enterprise-software skills.

Cons

• Skills-intelligence features are wasted spend if you only screen applicants.
• Entry pricing sits above most self-serve competitors.

Best for

Organisations running skills-based hiring and internal upskilling from one system.

Pricing

Annual plans quoted by volume, with a free trial available.

8. Hirevue

Hirevue is a video-led screening platform for high-volume hiring, with structured interview content developed by industrial and organisational psychologists.

Key features

• Validated, role-specific interview question libraries.
• On-demand and live video interviews with structured scoring rubrics.
• Game-based cognitive assessments.
• Interview scheduling automation and ATS connections.

Pros

• Built for funnels measured in tens of thousands of applicants.
• Interview content is grounded in selection science rather than assembled ad hoc.

Cons

• No public pricing and a procurement-heavy buying process.
• Oversized for a team hiring a few dozen people a year.

Best for

Enterprise and graduate hiring programmes where video screening is the main filter.

Pricing

Three plan tiers, none publicly disclosed. Pricing requires a sales conversation.

9. TestDome

TestDome sells short work-sample tests rather than trivia. Its 150+ pre-made tests simulate real tasks across programming, IT, accounting and customer service, and they are deliberately quick to sit.

Key features

• Work-sample questions modelled on actual job tasks.
• 150+ pre-built tests covering technical and administrative roles.
• Custom question authoring alongside the library.
• Scorecards with percentile rankings and clear pass or fail banding.

Pros

• Candidate packs suit teams that hire in occasional bursts.
• Short tests keep completion rates high.

Cons

• Shallow behavioural and personality coverage.
• Per-candidate economics get expensive at volume.

Best for

Small teams that want a fast, defensible screen without an annual commitment.

Pricing

Candidate packs and monthly subscriptions rather than seats. Published options include a pack of 10 candidates for around $150 valid for four months, a subscription around $200/month for 25 candidates, and an unlimited plan around $800/month.

10. Coderbyte

Coderbyte is a technical assessment platform aimed at startups and mid-sized teams hiring developers and data scientists, sold on a subscription rather than per candidate.

Key features

• 1,000+ coding challenges across 30+ languages and 100+ technical skills.
• Mixed question formats including multiple choice, written answers and SQL queries.
• Live interview tooling with a collaborative editor, notebooks and a whiteboard.
• Replayable coding sessions and automated scorecards.

Pros

• Session replay shows how a candidate worked, not just what they submitted.
• Subscription pricing removes per-candidate maths from the decision.

Cons

• Technical hiring only, with no psychometric coverage.
• Take-home projects still need human review time.

Best for

Startups and scale-ups hiring developers continuously.

Pricing

Monthly subscription with unlimited candidates and tests, discounted annually. Current rates are quoted on request.

11. The Talent Games

The Talent Games builds gamified assessments for early-careers and high-volume intakes, where engagement and employer brand carry as much weight as the score.

Key features

• Game-based challenges measuring decision-making, teamwork and adaptability.
• Timed competitive scenarios that test performance under pressure.
• Interactive simulations modelled on real job tasks.

Pros

• Strong completion and engagement with graduate audiences.
• Doubles as employer-brand content during campus campaigns.

Cons

• Narrow fit outside early careers and volume hiring.
• No published pricing.

Best for

Graduate schemes and early-careers intakes.

Pricing

Quote only, varying by assessment type, hiring scale and services included.

12. TalentMetrix

TalentMetrix concentrates on psychometric depth rather than breadth, aiming at the personality and behaviour signals a structured interview tends to miss.

Key features

• Psychometric tests spanning personality, cognitive ability, emotional intelligence and role-specific competencies.
• Diagnostic reports pairing numerical scores with written interpretation.
• A straightforward administration interface for both sides.

Pros

• Report narrative is useful for interview planning and development conversations.
• Focused product with a short learning curve.

Cons

• No skills or coding assessment, so it complements rather than replaces a screening platform.
• No published pricing.

Best for

Behavioural assessment on a short final shortlist.

Pricing

Quote only, based on assessment type and volume.

13. TalentLens

TalentLens, part of Pearson, is a test publisher first. If your requirement is instruments built and documented to formal professional standards, it sits in the same category as Test Partnership itself.

Key features

• Cognitive ability, personality and motivation assessments.
• Motivation instruments aimed at predicting engagement and retention.
• Tests developed to British Psychological Society and EFPA standards.

Pros

• Publisher-grade documentation, which matters when a selection decision is challenged.
• Established instruments with long track records.

Cons

• Narrow beyond psychometrics, with no work-sample or coding capability.
• No published pricing.

Best for

Organisations that need defensible, professionally standardised psychometrics.

Pricing

Quote only, based on instrument mix and volume.

14. TestInvite

TestInvite is an exam platform that also serves hiring, which shows in how much control it gives you over question design, timing and proctoring rules.

Key features

• Custom test creation across multiple choice, essay, coding and video formats.
• A library covering problem-solving, communication and role-specific competencies.
• Reporting with configurable scoring, benchmarks and written interpretations.
• Lockdown browser mode, randomised banks and video or audio monitoring.

Pros

• Unusual depth of control for organisations running certification alongside hiring.
• Low entry price relative to enterprise assessment suites.

Cons

• Configuration burden falls on you, which is slower than a templated platform.
• Add-ons and usage tiers make the final bill harder to predict.

Best for

Teams running certification, education and hiring assessments from one tool.

Pricing

Tiered subscriptions starting at a low monthly entry plan with limited attempts, rising with usage and add-ons.

15. eSkill

eSkill covers the practical end of pre-employment testing: clerical accuracy, software proficiency, literacy and numeracy, accounting and contact-centre scenarios.

Key features

• 600+ ready-to-use tests plus custom assessments assembled from a large question pool.
• Interactive simulations such as a support call or a data-entry task.
• Behavioural anti-cheating signals including copy-paste and window-switch monitoring.
• Reports broken down by subject area and question type.

Pros

• Strong coverage of frontline and administrative roles that technical platforms ignore.
• Modular test building fits unusual role definitions.

Cons

• Interface feels dated next to newer platforms.
• No published pricing.

Best for

High-volume clerical, retail and contact-centre hiring.

Pricing

Quote only, based on role mix and candidate volume.

Which are the best Test Partnership alternatives?

For most teams, Testlify. It covers the psychometric ground Test Partnership was bought for, then adds skills tests, coding, work samples and AI interviewing in the same platform, which removes the second subscription most teams end up buying within a year.

That recommendation follows the Testlify Multi-Signal Talent Evaluation Model: one signal is fragile, several are not. A candidate should move forward when a psychometric result, a work sample and a structured interview point the same way, not because one test score looked good in isolation. Running those signals in one system is what makes comparing them practical rather than a spreadsheet exercise.

Context is worth holding onto here. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 found employers expect 39% of the key skills required in the job market to change by 2030, down from 44% two years earlier. Meanwhile median employee tenure in the United States fell to 3.9 years in January 2024, the lowest since 2002, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Shorter tenure and shifting skills mean you will run this assessment process more often than you expect, so the tool you pick should fit the roles you will hire next year, not only the ones you hired last year.

If engineering dominates your hiring, a technical platform will beat a general one. If you are defending selection decisions in a regulated setting, a formal test publisher earns its price. For everyone else, breadth in one place wins.

Start a 7-day free trial or book a walkthrough to see how psychometric, skills and AI-interview signals sit side by side on one candidate profile. The full test library, the list of supported integrations, and the head-to-head Testlify and Test Partnership comparison are all worth ten minutes before you shortlist.

Key takeaways

• Match the platform to your role mix, not to a feature count. A psychometric publisher and a coding platform both look strong on paper and neither covers a mixed hiring plan. Write down your three most-hired roles first, because that list disqualifies most of the shortlist before any demo.
• Consolidation is where the money actually is. Teams that buy a psychometric tool and a skills tool usually end up paying twice for overlapping coverage. One platform spanning psychometrics, skills, coding and interviews removes the second invoice and the reconciliation work between two candidate records.
• Published pricing is a shortlisting signal in itself. Six of the fifteen platforms here publish no price at all, which means procurement time before you can even compare. If speed matters, weight the self-serve options higher.
• Watch credits, seats and add-ons, not the headline price. Credit expiry, seat caps and paid extras such as SSO or ATS integrations move the real annual cost more than the monthly figure does. Model a full year at your actual hiring volume.
• Psychometrics are one signal among several. Structured interviews, job-knowledge tests and work samples hold up in the selection-science literature, and combining evidence mechanically beats overriding it by judgement in the debrief.
• Validity does not transfer with the licence. Whichever vendor supplies the test, the employer still owns the obligation to keep selection job-related and consistent with business necessity, so ask for technical documentation before you buy.
• Candidate experience is a cost line. Drop-off during a long or clunky assessment never appears on the invoice, but it shows up as a smaller shortlist and a longer time to fill.

FAQs