Compare
Against what you do now.
Four honest comparisons. Every one of them opens with the reasons not to switch, because a page that cannot name them is an advert with a table on it.
HireOS vs reading them yourself
AI screening vs reading every CV yourself
The default, and for a small pile still the best option. The question is where the line sits.
HireOS vs ATS keyword search
AI screening vs ATS keyword search
Your ATS already searches CVs. The difference is that it searches for strings, and a CV is prose.
HireOS vs a general AI chatbot
Purpose-built screening vs pasting CVs into a chatbot
It works. That is the awkward part — it works well enough that a lot of desks are quietly doing it, and the reasons not to are not about output quality.
HireOS vs outsourced screening
In-house AI screening vs an outsourced screening team
Both remove the reading from your consultants. The difference is turnaround, and where the judgement ends up living.
Why no competitor names
We compare approaches, not other people’s products.
Every “vs” page on the internet claims a rival is missing a feature it shipped last quarter. We have not audited anybody else’s software, so anything we published about it would be guesswork with a logo on it.
What we can describe accurately is how the underlying approaches differ — keyword search against language models, a chat window against a system of record, a team against software. That is the part that decides it anyway.
The offer
Test it against what you do now.
A seven-day trial on one of your live roles. Run it beside your current process and compare the two shortlists — that is the only comparison that settles it.
- 1Twenty minutesYou bring one live role. We look at it together — no deck, no discovery questionnaire.
- 2Set up on the callYour job description becomes a rubric while you watch, and your own CVs go through it.
- 3Then 7 days aloneYou run it on real work and judge it on the shortlist, not on anything we said.