Top 15 Testgrid Alternatives and Competitors

Two different companies answer to the name Testgrid, and picking the wrong one wastes an afternoon. This page is about Testgrid at testgrid.com, the Australian owned pre-employment assessment and hiring-intelligence vendor: psychometric batteries, aptitude tests, safety assessments, video interviewing and pre-employment verifications. If you landed here looking for TestGrid at testgrid.io, the cross-browser and mobile test-automation cloud, that is a completely unrelated QA product and nothing below will help you.

Still with us? Good. Testgrid is a genuinely solid platform for Australian employers who want validated psychometrics and local data storage. It runs ACER, Saville Swift Aptitude and Watson Glaser batteries, covers behavioural and emotional intelligence testing, and layers on safety assessments for high-risk industries. Plenty of teams outgrow it anyway, usually for one of three reasons: they start hiring technical roles it was never built to score, they hire outside Australia, or they want assessment and interviewing in one tool instead of two.

TL;DR

• Testgrid (testgrid.com) is an Australian pre-employment assessment vendor. It is not TestGrid (testgrid.io), the QA test-automation cloud that dominates this search result.
• The three usual triggers for switching: technical and coding roles, hiring outside Australia, and wanting interviewing plus assessment in a single platform.
• Judge any replacement on job-relevance of the tests, integrity controls, candidate experience, ATS fit and price per candidate assessed. Not on the size of the test library.
• The research is blunt about what predicts performance: structured, job-relevant evidence beats years of education and general experience, so pick the tool that scores the work, not the resume.
• Testlify is the closest like-for-like swap with wider technical and interviewing coverage. The 14 other platforms below each win in a narrower lane.

What is Testgrid?

Testgrid is an Australian owned and operated assessment platform that helps employers screen candidates with psychometric, aptitude, behavioural, emotional intelligence, skills and safety tests, with data stored locally in Australia. It also offers online proctoring, video interviewing technology, ATS integration and pre-employment verifications such as background and reference checks.

The local angle is the real product. Australian data residency is not a footnote for a government department, a mining contractor or a hospital network, and Testgrid's aptitude coverage leans on batteries Australian and New Zealand HR teams already trust. Its safety assessment range is aimed squarely at construction, transport, mining and warehousing, where a bad hire is a physical risk rather than a productivity one.

Where it gets thin is technical hiring. Testgrid's public product pages describe psychometric, aptitude, behavioural and skills testing, and do not describe coding assessments, live code execution or developer work samples. A team that starts hiring engineers usually ends up buying a second tool.

Why teams look for Testgrid alternatives

Three patterns come up again and again when a team starts shopping.

The role mix changed. A company that was hiring warehouse staff and office administrators starts hiring developers, data analysts and product people. Aptitude and personality batteries do not tell you whether someone can debug a failing test suite.

The map got bigger. Australian data residency is a feature until you are hiring in Manila, Bangalore and Austin, at which point you want a platform with multilingual candidate flows and pricing that does not assume one market.

Tool sprawl. Running an assessment vendor, a separate video interview tool and a scheduling add-on means three logins, three invoices and candidate data in three places. Consolidation is the single most common reason teams switch assessment platforms, and it has nothing to do with the tests themselves.

There is also a quieter reason worth naming: the work itself keeps moving. The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report 2025 found employers expect 39% of workers' core skills to change by 2030, down from 44% two years earlier but still a large chunk of every job description. A test library built for the roles you hired in 2021 ages faster than it used to.

Employers are already acting on it at the top of the funnel. Indeed Hiring Lab found that 52% of US job postings carried no formal education requirement as of January 2024, up from 48% at the same point in 2019. Drop the degree filter and something has to replace it, which is why the assessment step stops being a nice-to-have and starts being the screen.

How we evaluated these Testgrid alternatives

Test-library size is the metric every vendor leads with and the one that matters least. A library of 3,000 tests you never use is worth less than 40 tests mapped precisely to the roles you actually hire. So the ranking below weighs six things instead.

1. Job relevance. Can you assess the work the person will actually do, including practical tasks and code, not just an abstract reasoning score?
2. Evidence quality. Does the platform produce structured, comparable scores, or a report someone has to interpret by feel?
3. Integrity. Proctoring, identity checks and AI-assistance detection that hold up when a hiring decision gets challenged.
4. Candidate experience. Time to complete, device support, accommodations, and whether people finish.
5. Fit with your stack. Does it work with the ATS you already run, and does it help if you run none?
6. Price per candidate assessed. Not per seat, not per year. The number that scales with your hiring.

Two of those deserve backing up, because they are where most buying decisions go wrong. On evidence quality, a 2022 reanalysis of selection-method validity by Sackett and colleagues placed structured interviews among the strongest predictors of job performance while years of education and general work experience landed among the weakest. The CIPD puts it plainly too: skill-based assessments predict on-the-job performance better than reviewing job experience, education or unstructured interviews. Structure is the active ingredient, not the brand of test.

And on how you combine the results, a meta-analysis by Kuncel and colleagues found that mechanically combining assessment information predicts outcomes as well as or better than experts recombining the same information by judgment. Translation: let the scoring model do the arithmetic, then let humans decide. A platform that dumps five PDFs on a hiring manager and calls it a report is making that harder, not easier.

This is what the Testlify Multi-Signal Talent Evaluation Model is built around. Rather than betting a hire on one test score or one polished interview, it combines several role-relevant signals (assessments, coding work samples, AI interviews, references and reviewer feedback) so a candidate advances when independent signals agree. One signal is fragile. Several pointing the same way is a decision you can defend.

Pro tip: before you demo anything, write down the three roles you hired most last year and ask each vendor to build an assessment for one of them during the trial. Vendors who need a services engagement to do that will need one every time you add a role.

Quick comparison table

1. Testlify

Testlify is the closest like-for-like replacement for Testgrid that also covers the two things Testgrid does not: technical assessment and full interviewing. It is an AI-assisted, human-led assessment platform with role-based skills tests, cognitive and personality assessment, coding work samples, and interviewing built into the same product.

Key features

• Over 25 question types, including single and multiple select, ranking, fill in the blank, file upload, typing tests and practical hands-on tasks submitted by file or URL.
• Office-app questions bound to the real products: Google Docs, Sheets and Slides, plus Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint. This is the direct answer to Testgrid's clerical and desktop-skills range.
• Coding questions with an embedded VS Code editor, single or multi-file projects, up to 20 visible or hidden test cases, per-test-case scoring and SQLite database test cases. Vibe coding questions let candidates direct AI tools to a working solution instead of writing syntax by hand, which is closer to how engineers now work.
• Interviewing in four formats: one-way async video, two-way conversational AI video, voice and audio questions, and outbound AI phone interviews billed at $0.18 per minute. You can pick the AI avatar and voice, write custom prompts, cap attempts and recording time, and get automatic multilingual transcripts.
• Proctoring with three presets (Standard, Strict, Custom) and dual-device monitoring, where the candidate's phone acts as a second camera and the session will not start until it is active.
• Item-level psychometrics recruiters can actually see: difficulty index, discrimination index and a quality-risk flag for questions with very low accuracy or high skip rates.

Pros

• Assessment and interviewing in one platform, so no second vendor for video.
• AI scores and insights ship with a stated disclaimer that they are for guidance only, and both "display AI scores to the reviewer" and "include AI score in the final average" are toggles. You can run AI purely advisory, which matters for NYC Local Law 144 and EU AI Act exposure.
• Works either way on applicant tracking: it integrates with the ATS you already run and leaves it as the system of record, and it ships a simple built-in pipeline (job requisitions, an application form, job-board publishing, applied to reviewed to shortlisted to rejected) for teams that run no ATS at all.
• Self-serve pricing published on the site, with a 7-day free trial and no card required.

Cons

• It does not schedule live human interview panels. If you need calendar coordination for a four-person panel, that stays with your ATS or a scheduling tool.
• Chromium desktop only for assessments (Chrome or Edge). The mobile app is a capture fallback for recording audio and video, not a way to sit a whole assessment on a phone.
• AI resume scoring currently requires a Greenhouse integration.

Best for

Teams under about 200 people hiring a mix of technical and non-technical roles who want one tool instead of three, and Australian or New Zealand teams who need coding coverage Testgrid does not offer.

Pricing

Billed annually: Starter is $139 a month for 100 candidate credits a year and 3 seats, Basic is $279 a month for 300 credits and 5 seats, and Business is $699 a month for 1,000 credits and 10 seats. Premium, Enterprise and Custom tiers are quoted by sales. One credit is used per assessment started by a qualified candidate, extra seats are $15 each per month, and there is a 30-day money-back guarantee plus a 25% non-profit discount. White labelling, the 100+ ATS integrations bundle and SAML SSO are paid add-ons on the self-serve tiers at $2,388 a year each, included on Custom. Check the current plan and credit tiers before you budget.

2. TestGorilla

TestGorilla is a self-serve skills screening platform built around short, stackable tests you combine into one assessment per role. Setup is fast, the candidate flow is clean, and it covers cognitive ability, personality, language and role-specific skills alongside custom questions.

Best for

Small teams replacing resume screening for generalist and early-career roles who want to be live this week rather than this quarter.

Limitations

Depth drops off for senior technical hiring, and heavy reliance on a shared public test bank means candidates may have seen the questions before.

3. Adaface

Adaface screens candidates through a conversational chat interface rather than a conventional test form, which tends to lift completion rates. Its strength is technical and developer assessment across a wide set of languages and frameworks.

Best for

Engineering teams that care about candidate drop-off and want technical screening that does not feel like an exam.

Limitations

Non-technical coverage is narrower, so a team hiring across warehouse, admin and finance roles will find gaps Testgrid already fills.

4. Vervoe

Vervoe leans hard into skills-first hiring with simulations that ask candidates to do a version of the job rather than answer questions about it. Scoring learns from how your own strong performers answer, so the model improves as you hire.

Best for

Teams that want work samples over multiple choice and are willing to invest in tuning the scoring.

Limitations

That tuning is the tradeoff. Simulation-based scoring needs volume and attention before it beats a well-built conventional test.

5. Codility

Codility is a developer assessment platform aimed at engineering organisations hiring at scale, with coding tasks, live pair-programming sessions and reporting built for technical hiring managers.

Best for

Engineering-led companies running structured technical loops with dedicated recruiting support.

Limitations

It solves one third of the problem for a Testgrid customer. Everything outside software engineering needs another tool.

6. Mercer Mettl

Mercer Mettl combines talent assessment with heavy proctoring and certification-grade exam delivery, backed by Mercer's consulting arm. Coverage spans psychometrics, technical skills and remote exam invigilation.

Best for

Large organisations and education bodies that need audited, high-stakes remote testing.

Limitations

Implementation and administration are heavier than a self-serve tool, which is a poor trade for a 60-person company.

7. iMocha

iMocha built its position on skills intelligence: a very large skills taxonomy used for hiring and, increasingly, for internal mobility and workforce planning rather than screening alone.

Best for

Enterprises mapping an existing workforce's skills, not just filtering applicants.

Limitations

Pricing and onboarding assume an enterprise buyer with a project team behind them.

8. HireVue

HireVue is video interviewing first and assessment second, designed for organisations screening thousands of candidates through structured on-demand interviews with scheduling and workflow around them.

Best for

High-volume hiring programmes where interview logistics, not test design, are the bottleneck.

Limitations

If what you liked about Testgrid was the psychometric depth, this is a different product category wearing similar language.

9. TestDome

TestDome focuses on practical, work-like programming questions with a straightforward setup and pricing model. Candidates solve realistic tasks rather than puzzle problems.

Best for

Small technical teams that want a quick, low-admin coding screen.

Limitations

Coverage outside technical screening is limited, so it complements rather than replaces a general assessment platform.

10. Coderbyte

Coderbyte offers developer challenges, take-home projects and interview tooling drawn from a large public challenge library, with a lightweight setup aimed at smaller engineering teams.

Best for

Startups running their first structured technical screen without a dedicated recruiting function.

Limitations

A widely used public challenge library means question exposure is a real risk, and there is nothing here for non-technical roles.

11. Hiremojo

Hiremojo sits closer to recruitment automation than assessment, combining sourcing and workflow automation for repeatable, high-volume roles.

Best for

Teams whose bottleneck is filling a pipeline rather than measuring the people in it.

Limitations

It is not an assessment platform, so it does not replace what Testgrid does. Listed here because it often appears on the same shortlist, not because it competes on testing.

12. HackerEarth

HackerEarth pairs technical assessment with hackathons and developer community events, which makes it as much a sourcing channel as a screening tool for engineering teams.

Best for

Companies running campus drives or hiring events who want assessment and reach in one place.

Limitations

Outside engineering there is very little, and the events model only pays off at volume.

13. HackerRank

HackerRank is the best-known technical assessment brand, with a deep question bank, benchmarking against a large candidate pool and integrations into most engineering hiring stacks.

Best for

Engineering organisations that want recognised technical benchmarks and broad ATS support.

Limitations

Its own popularity is the catch: candidates practise on the public question set, so a strong score can measure preparation as much as ability.

14. eSkill

eSkill lets you build job-specific tests from a large question pool, with strong coverage of clerical, administrative and customer-service skills. That overlaps closely with what many Testgrid customers use it for.

Best for

Operations and back-office hiring where the skills are concrete and easy to test directly.

Limitations

The candidate interface shows its age next to newer platforms, and completion rates suffer for it.

15. Canditech

Canditech combines job simulations with one-way video questions in a single assessment, so a hiring manager sees both what a candidate can do and how they explain it.

Best for

Teams that want work-sample evidence and a communication signal without running two separate stages.

Limitations

The ready-made library is smaller than the incumbents', so expect to build more of your own content.

Which is the best Testgrid alternative?

For most teams leaving Testgrid, Testlify is the best Testgrid alternative, because it keeps what you had (validated skills and personality assessment, proctoring, ATS integration) and adds the two things that usually triggered the search: coding assessment and built-in interviewing. It is also the only option on this list where a 40-person company and a 4,000-person company can both start on a published price.

That is not a universal answer, so here is the honest split. Hiring engineers almost exclusively? A dedicated technical platform will go deeper than any generalist tool. Running certification-grade exams for thousands of people? The enterprise proctoring vendors earn their heavier setup. Bottleneck is scheduling and volume rather than measurement? A video interviewing platform solves your actual problem. And if your hiring is entirely Australian, entirely non-technical and you value the ACER and Saville batteries specifically, staying on Testgrid is a perfectly reasonable decision. Switching costs are real.

One caveat nobody selling you software will mention: changing assessment vendors will not fix a hiring process that has no agreed definition of a good hire. If your hiring managers cannot name the three competencies that separate a strong performer from an average one, a new platform just produces prettier scores for the same argument. Fix the scorecard first. It costs nothing.

Try Testlify on your next role

The fastest way to compare any of these is to run one real role through them. Testlify offers a 7-day free trial with no card required, so you can build an assessment for a role you are hiring right now and see what the shortlist looks like before you commit. Browse the role-based test library, check which of your tools it plugs into on the integrations page, or book a walkthrough with the team. If you want the head-to-head detail rather than the field, the full Testlify and Testgrid comparison goes feature by feature.

Key takeaways

• Confirm which Testgrid you mean before anything else. The assessment vendor at testgrid.com and the QA automation cloud at testgrid.io share a name and nothing else. Half the confusion around this search is people reading reviews of the wrong product, and a shortlist built on the wrong company wastes a procurement cycle.
• Switching is usually triggered by role mix, not dissatisfaction. Teams leave when they start hiring engineers, start hiring outside Australia, or get tired of paying two vendors for assessment and video. Naming your actual trigger tells you which of the 15 platforms above to look at first, and stops you evaluating all of them.
• Ignore test-library size in the sales deck. Forty tests mapped to the roles you hire beat 3,000 you will never open. Ask instead how long it takes to build an assessment for a role the vendor has never seen, because you will do that every time you open a new requisition.
• Structure is what makes assessment work, not the brand of test. The selection-science evidence consistently favours structured, job-relevant methods over years of education or general experience, and favours letting a scoring model combine the evidence before humans decide. Buy for structure and defensibility, since that is also what protects you if a rejected candidate challenges the decision.
• Price on candidates assessed, not seats. Per-seat pricing punishes you for involving hiring managers, which is exactly the behaviour you want. Model the cost of your real annual hiring volume across two or three vendors before you shortlist, because the ranking changes once you do.
• Trial with a live role, never a sample one. Vendor demo data always looks good. Run a role you are genuinely hiring for, send it to real applicants, and judge the completion rate and the quality of the shortlist rather than the dashboard.

FAQs