Interviewer.AI
HireAIScore rates Interviewer.AI 47 out of 100 (grade F, Substantial gaps) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed June 7, 2026. Interviewer.AI ranks 20 of 57 vendors rated in Video interview AI, against a category average of 44. That score is drawn from 18 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Interviewer.AI — 12 with a cited source, 6 recording that nothing was located.
Score breakdown
Interviewer.AI, criterion by criterion
Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.
Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Weight 20% · category avg 46
52
+10.4
Bias Audit Transparency
Weight 18% · category avg 38
35
+6.3
FRIA Support
Weight 15% · category avg 30
35
+5.3
Data Governance Disclosure
Weight 15% · category avg 51
60
+9.0
Human Oversight Design
Weight 12% · category avg 56
60
+7.2
Post-Market Monitoring
Weight 12% · category avg 37
32
+3.8
Customer Documentation
Weight 8% · category avg 56
58
+4.6
Total weighted score
46.6(rounded to 47 for display)
Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 57 Video interview AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.
Strongest criterion
Human Oversight Design
60raw / 100
Contributes 7.2 to the total. 60 against a 56 category average.
Weakest criterion
Post-Market Monitoring
32raw / 100
Contributes 3.8 to the total. 32 against a 37 category average.
Cited evidence
The evidence behind the score
Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.
Download diligence recordEvidence ledger
- Items
- 18
- Documentation
- 12
- Absence
- 6
- With a source URL
- 12 of 18
- Source hostnames
- 1
- Fewest items
- 2
- Bias Audit Transparency
These figures measure how thoroughly Interviewer.AI was reviewed, not how Interviewer.AI performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.
Article 11 Technical Documentation
3 items52
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Public Explainable-AI page describes the scoring methodology, stating observable features are evaluated via 'a combination of I/O psychology heuristics and machine learning' across narrow AI models, positioned against 'black-box AI approaches.'
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Privacy policy documents AI processing detail (response relevancy, communication clarity, resume alignment) and links the Explainability Portal for 'plain-language descriptions of AI methodology and scoring.'
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No formal model/system card, Article 11 technical documentation pack, instructions-for-use, or ISO 42001 reference was found on the vendor site or in search; the public Explainable-AI page (facial/emotion/eye-contact features) also conflicts with the privacy policy's claim that emotion recognition is not performed.
Bias Audit Transparency
2 items35
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Vendor states models are trained to be 'blind towards age, genders, ethnicity' on 'global and purposefully curated' datasets to 'avoid any undesirable historical biases,' but provides no audit, disparate-impact data, or third-party verification.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No NYC LL 144 disparate-impact bias-audit summary and no independent audit (BABL AI, Warden AI, Holistic AI, ORCAA, DCI) was found on the vendor's site, pricing/trust pages, or via web search of LL 144 audit registries and the vendor name.
FRIA Support
2 items35
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Policy requires a data processing agreement and states a 'data protection impact assessment must be in place before production use' for EU/EEA deployments, but stops at GDPR DPIA and never addresses an EU AI Act Article 27 Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No FRIA template, Article 27 deployer guidance, or EU AI Act fundamental-rights assessment material was found anywhere on the vendor site or in search.
Data Governance Disclosure
3 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Policy states the company runs an 'ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certified information security management system,' names OpenAI/Anthropic/Google as AI sub-processors that receive transcripts only and 'do not use API data to train their general-purpose models,' and commits to TLS 1.3 / AES-256 encryption and annual penetration testing.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Policy discloses data-handling controls including raw video/audio deletion within 24 hours and separation of demographic identifiers from transcript content before AI model evaluation, plus default retention windows and candidate self-deletion.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No SOC 2 Type II report or ISO/IEC 42001 (AI management system) certification is referenced; data-governance disclosure is policy-based rather than backed by an independent attestation report.
Human Oversight Design
3 items60
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Policy states 'All AI outputs are decision-support only. No candidate disposition action can be taken without a deliberate human action in the platform' and 'No candidate may be rejected solely on the basis of AI scores without human review,' with candidates able to request human review.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Vendor blog advocates 'human-in-the-loop processes,' stating 'AI outputs should always be reviewed and validated by humans' and 'Human oversight is not optional - it's essential.'
https://interviewer.ai/can-ai-replace-human-judgment-in-hiring/
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Explainability portal and 'Deep AI Score Breakdown' give reviewers a per-factor explanation of why a candidate was scored, supporting in-product oversight rather than a black-box output.
Post-Market Monitoring
2 items32
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Policy provides a privacy/data-protection contact route and a 30-day deletion-propagation commitment plus annual penetration testing, but no ongoing public monitoring surface.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No public status page, model-update changelog, incident/vulnerability-disclosure channel, or continuous bias/performance monitoring dashboard was found on the vendor site or via search.
Customer Documentation
3 items58
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Comprehensive public product site covering async video interviews, avatar interviews, mock interviews, and admissions, plus a help center (help.interviewer.ai), pricing page, and a whitepapers library.
- DocumentationCaptured Jun 7, 2026
Detailed candidate- and deployer-facing privacy policy sets out DPA execution, DPIA requirements, candidate rights (access/correction/deletion/portability), human-review on request, and CCPA automated-decision opt-out.
- AbsenceCaptured Jun 7, 2026
No dedicated NYC Local Law 144 deployer guidance, EU AI Act compliance hub, or downloadable standalone DPA template was found; compliance content is embedded in the privacy policy rather than a structured trust/compliance center.
Editorial notes
Company overview
Interviewer.AI is a Singapore-headquartered HR-tech vendor founded in 2018 by Sunny Saurabh (CEO), Srividya Gopani, and Manoj Salian (incorporated as UEN 201837827Z). Its core product is an end-to-end asynchronous video interview platform that lets employers, universities, and SMBs screen large applicant volumes through recorded video responses, with the system generating an 'AI Score' and a 'Deep AI Score Breakdown' from a combination of I/O-psychology heuristics and machine-learning models that score communication, response relevancy, and resume alignment. The suite also includes avatar-based conversational interviews, candidate mock interviews, and university admissions assessments. Pricing is published in self-serve mid-market tiers (roughly USD 53–67/month per plan) alongside an annual enterprise option, placing it in the mid price tier.
Regulatory exposure
As an automated tool that 'substantially assists' hiring shortlisting, Interviewer.AI sits squarely in scope of NYC Local Law 144 (AEDT), the EU AI Act's high-risk employment classification, and US state automated-decision rules in Illinois and Colorado. Its public materials carry no NYC LL 144 bias-audit summary and no independent (BABL/Warden/Holistic/ORCAA-type) audit, which is the single largest exposure given the product historically analyzes facial expression, eye-contact, energy, and 'emotional state' signals - a category increasingly restricted as prohibited emotion-recognition under the EU AI Act. Notably, its detailed privacy policy now states emotion recognition is 'not performed on any deployment' and that biometric/facial features are 'optional only,' which conflicts with the still-live public Explainable-AI page describing facial and emotional-state scoring; this inconsistency is itself a compliance risk. On the positive side, the privacy policy is unusually substantive: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification, a documented human-review-only decision model, GDPR/DPA/DPIA references, CCPA automated-decision opt-out, AI-vendor training-data exclusions, 24-hour raw-media deletion, and demographic-identifier separation before model evaluation.
Path to a higher score
The highest-impact move is to commission and publicly post an independent bias audit (NYC LL 144 disparate-impact summary plus an auditor such as BABL AI, Warden AI, or Holistic AI), ideally on a yearly cadence, since the vendor currently publishes none. Next, reconcile the contradiction between the Explainable-AI marketing page (facial/emotion/eye-contact analysis) and the privacy policy (emotion recognition disclaimed) by publishing a single authoritative system/model card and an Article 11-style technical documentation pack with a clear feature inventory and exclusion list. Adding EU AI Act deployer guidance (a FRIA/Article 27 template and instructions-for-use), pursuing ISO 42001, and standing up a public post-market monitoring surface (status page, model-update changelog, security/incident contact) would move the vendor from a 'privacy-policy-only' compliance posture toward verifiable, audit-backed transparency.
Regulatory frame
What applies to video interview AI.
The most heavily-regulated category. NYC LL 144 has applied since 2023; EU AI Act Annex III §4 treats the assessment layer as high-risk; Mobley v. Workday is shaping vendor-liability case-law here.
Compare
Interviewer.AI against its nearest-scoring peers.
The closest scores in Video interview AI, side by side.
- Side-by-sideInterviewer.AI vs Sova Assessment48F
- Side-by-sideInterviewer.AI vs Crosschq47F
- Side-by-sideInterviewer.AI vs Knockri47F
- Side-by-sideInterviewer.AI vs TestGorilla47F
Ranking
Others rated in Video interview AI
Ranked 20 of 57 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.
- #17Employment Hero48F
- #18VidCruiter48F
- #19Crosschq47F
- #20Interviewer.AIThis profile47F
- #21Knockri47F
- #22TestGorilla47F
Conflicts of interest
No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.
Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.