Decide on evidence, not on who interviewed well
A confident interviewee is not a capable hire, and gut-feel decisions are the ones that fall apart in month three. InterviewGod's assessments score candidates on real skills against a consistent rubric, so your hiring decisions rest on evidence you can defend.
Skills tests, role-fit and behavioural checks, and clear scorecards — the assessment layer that turns a hiring debate into a comparison of measured results.
Banao — scores its own candidates on measured skills before a hiring decision is made.
Assessment is about replacing impression with evidence. We score the things that predict performance, consistently.
Role-specific skills tests
Assessments built around what the job actually requires, scored the same way for every candidate.
Behavioural & role-fit checks
Structured checks that surface fit and red flags as evidence, not as a hunch a recruiter has to defend later.
Comparable scorecards
Clear, side-by-side results so a hiring decision becomes a comparison of measured skill, not a debate about impressions.
Defensible and consistent
The same rubric for everyone gives you decisions you can stand behind and a process candidates experience as fair.
We score before we decide on our own hires
Banao assesses its own candidates on measured skills before a hiring decision, so the call is backed by evidence rather than interview confidence. The same assessment layer is what you run.
Hiring debates replaced by comparable scores
For teams hiring at volume, comparable scorecards turn long decision debates into a clear comparison of measured results, speeding decisions while making them more defensible.
Metrics shown dotted (··) are being finalised in our case-study metrics pack. The deployment is real; we will not publish a number before it is verified.
We score our own hires before deciding
Banao backs its own hiring decisions with measured assessment scores, not interview impressions. We have felt the cost of a confident interviewee who could not do the work, which is why the assessment comes before the decision.
The assessment layer you run is the one our own hiring depends on — tuned to predict performance, not to reward people who interview well.
InterviewGod
Scores Banao's own candidates on measured skills.
Vikaas
Sources the candidates the assessments then score.
When assessment scores mislead
A score is evidence, not the whole truth. We will be clear about where it stops:
Senior roles where judgement dominates
a test cannot measure leadership; use assessment to inform, not decide.
Over-weighting a single number
a score is one input among interviews and references, not a verdict on its own.
Poorly chosen tests
an assessment misaligned to the role measures the wrong thing — design matters, and we scope it first.
We validate the assessments against people you already rate.
Screening Pilot Sprint
We build assessments for one role and run them against current employees, so you see whether the scores match real performance before relying on them.
Configure & integrate
We tune the assessments and scorecards to your roles and wire results into your ATS so scores travel with the candidate.
Roll out
Extend across roles, with comparable scorecards feeding faster, more defensible hiring decisions.
The questions buyers ask first.
How is assessment different from AI interview screening?
Will the assessments actually predict performance?
Does this make hiring fairer?
Can we use scores alongside interviews?
Replace gut-feel with a scorecard
Bring a role where hiring decisions keep going wrong. In 30 minutes we'll scope assessments that put evidence behind the call.
Book a demo →