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 hiring workflow and the real inputs it uses. We look at it together—no deck or discovery questionnaire.
- 2Set up on the callWe configure the module you intend to buy and run the first real step with you while you watch.
- 3Then 7 days aloneYour team runs it on live work and judges the outcome you agreed upfront—not anything we said.