SharpAssessmentGet started

Practical tests, not personality guesswork

Find out if they can do the work

SharpAssessment sends your candidates a short, job-related test, scores every one against the same criteria, and puts the results side by side. Pay for the candidates you assess, not for a year of software.

  • 01

    Pick the role

    Practical and job-knowledge tests for roles where the work is checkable: data entry, bookkeeping, support, warehouse, admin.

  • 02

    Send one link

    Candidates take it in the browser. No install, no account for them. Most tests run between three and twenty minutes.

  • 03

    Compare on one screen

    Everyone scored against the same criteria, in the same order, with the reasoning attached rather than a single number you take on trust.

Why a work sample beats the alternative

An unstructured interview measures how well someone interviews. A work sample measures whether they can do the thing you are hiring them to do, and it is far easier to justify if a rejected candidate asks why.

That is the whole design principle. If the job is entering invoices, the test has someone enter invoices. If the job is answering annoyed customers, the test has them answer an annoyed customer. Job-relatedness is not an argument to be constructed afterwards; it is visible in the task itself.

What comes back

What the report shows
A score with its parts Accuracy, speed and judgement reported separately, because a fast candidate with a two percent error rate is usually the worse hire
The same criteria for everyone Scoring rules are fixed before the first candidate starts, so the tenth is not marked harder than the first because you were tired
A record of the decision What was asked, what was answered, how it scored. This is what you need on the day someone asks why they were rejected
Where the test stops Every test says what it does not measure. A test used outside its range predicts nothing, and that is the usual reason teams give up on testing

Built for teams without an assessment specialist

Five to fifty hires a year. The person choosing the test is the person running the interview, and probably wrote the job ad too. No validation budget, no dedicated talent function, and no appetite for a twelve-month contract to cover one busy quarter.

If you do have a talent assessment function and a validation budget, the established vendors are built for you, and the comparison page says which one to look at. Pointing you there beats selling you the wrong shape of tool.

The questions that come next

Answered on their own pages, because they are the ones that decide whether this is usable rather than the ones that make a good headline:

  • What it costs. Three dollars a candidate, less on a pack, no annual contract.
  • Who else sells this. Thirteen vendors and us in one table, with the date on every price and review score, including the rows where we come off worse.
  • Whether it fits your ATS. It runs alongside every one of them, and the page is honest about what is not automated yet.
  • Whether testing is defensible. EEOC, adverse impact, the AI hiring laws, and what the record gives you.
  • Where the data lives. EU infrastructure, twelve-month retention, and the certifications we do not have.
  • What a candidate sees. Written for the person who was sent the link, not for you.

Frequently asked questions

How long does it take to set up a test?
Minutes. Pick the role, keep the suggested tests or swap them, and send one link. The scoring criteria come attached to the test, so you are not writing a rubric from scratch before the first candidate.
What does it cost?
Plans from $99 a month, which includes 50 assessments, or $1.98 each. Growth is $249 a month for 150 and Scale is $499 for 400, and every plan shows what one assessment costs, which is the number half this category will not publish. No seats, no per-job fee and no setup fee. Below roughly 35 assessments a year a prepaid per-candidate vendor works out cheaper than any plan floor, and the pricing page says so plainly rather than leaving you to find out in March. The full breakdown is on the pricing page.
Do you have personality and cognitive tests?
Not in the library, on purpose. A personality or cognitive score only means something with population norms and a validity argument behind it, and one without those is exactly what leaves a hiring team unable to explain a rejection. The practical and job-knowledge tests are defensible on content validity because they sample the work itself.
Can a candidate cheat on an unsupervised test?
Some will try. The scoring weights the things that are hard to fake: accuracy on realistic material, judgement in role-specific scenarios, and consistency across tasks rather than one lucky answer. For roles where it really matters, the practical tests are short enough to re-run in person as a confirmation step.
Is it legal to test candidates in the United States?
Yes, with conditions. If a test produces adverse impact against a protected group, the EEOC Uniform Guidelines expect you to show it is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Work samples are the easiest kind to defend because the connection to the job is visible in the task. Some jurisdictions add their own rules: New York City Local Law 144 requires an annual bias audit for automated employment decision tools used on roles there. This is a summary of business risk, not legal advice.