SharpAssessmentGet started

Job knowledge test

Sales assessment test

Whether a candidate can do the parts of a sales job that move revenue: qualifying a lead honestly, answering an objection without reaching for a discount, keeping the arithmetic of a deal straight, and choosing what to work on when there is more pipeline than time.

Also searched for as a sales skills assessment, pre-employment sales test or a sales competency test. Same instrument, and this page describes all of it.

Time to complete
About 25 minutes
Format
Four exercises: a call transcript, a written objection reply, deal arithmetic, a prioritisation task
Test family
Job knowledge
Included in
All plans

What this test can see, and what an interview cannot

A sales interview measures how well somebody interviews. That is a real skill, and it is the same skill the job needs for about the first ten minutes of a first call. After that the job is qualifying honestly when the deal looks good, answering an objection without reaching for a discount, keeping the numbers straight, and deciding what to do with a Tuesday that holds more pipeline than hours.

Those are the four things this test samples, and it samples them by handing over the material rather than asking about it. The candidate reads a call transcript and writes the qualification notes. They answer an objection in writing. They work out which of two deals is worth the month. They order a day's queue and say what they are dropping. Everyone applying for the role gets the same material and the same rubric, which matters more in sales than in most functions: quota attainment on a CV is self-reported, rarely adjusted for territory or for what the product was doing at the time, and impossible to compare between two candidates who came from different companies.

The four exercises a candidate works through

  1. A discovery call that went well

    A two-hundred-word transcript of a first call. The prospect is enthusiastic, mentions a budget cycle in passing, and never names anyone who signs.

    What it separates Whether enthusiasm reads as a signal or as noise, and whether the notes record what is still unknown rather than only what was said.

  2. An objection with an incumbent behind it

    A reply saying the price is twenty percent above what they pay now, and that what they have works fine.

    What it separates Whether the first move is a discount, a feature list or a question. Discounting on the first objection is the most common answer and the most expensive habit.

  3. Two deals and one month

    A deal sheet with amounts, discounts, close dates and stage ages for two opportunities, and a quota that only one of them makes.

    What it separates Whether a pipeline reads as arithmetic or as optimism, and whether the candidate will actually name the deal they are dropping.

  4. A Tuesday with too much in it

    Eight things: three inbound leads of uneven quality, two inherited follow-ups, a renewal, an internal request, and a prospect who has gone quiet two weeks after a demo.

    What it separates What gets done first, what gets dropped, and whether the quiet prospect gets one more specific reason to reply or gets written off.

How the objection reply is scored

Each part is scored on the output. The report shows the four parts separately and deliberately does not roll them into a single number.

That split is the point. A candidate who qualifies carefully but discounts on first contact is a different hire from one who holds price all day and fills the pipeline with deals that were never going to close, and one combined score puts both of them in the middle of the list. On the written objection reply, three things carry the weight:

The objection reply is marked by your team against a rubric shown beside the answer, the same criteria for every candidate. It is the human-marked piece on purpose: judging whether a reply lands is the judgement a sales manager is hired for, and an answer key would flatten exactly the thing worth reading.

What separates a strong result from a weak one

Reading the report forA strong candidateA weak one
QualificationWrites down what is still unknown and what would change the answer.Records enthusiasm as progress.
Objection handlingAsks before arguing, and trades for anything conceded.Opens with a discount, or with a list of features.
Deal arithmeticReads the numbers and names the deal being dropped.Keeps both alive and misses the month.
PrioritisationWorks the two things that can close, and says what waits.Works the queue in the order it arrived.
Follow-upGives the quiet prospect one specific reason to reply.Sends a checking-in note, or writes them off.

Roles it suits

Account executive
The role the test was shaped around, and the only one where all four parts carry equal weight. Build the interview on the answers rather than beside them: ask the candidate to defend the deal they dropped.
Sales development rep
Weight prioritisation and the written reply. Deal arithmetic barely applies to a role that never owns a close, so read a weak score there as noise. Where the job is mostly outbound email, the business writing test is a sharper measure of the part that fills the calendar.
Inside sales and high-volume closing
Deal arithmetic and prioritisation are the parts that predict. If the day is quoting and order maths rather than negotiation, the workplace numeracy test covers the arithmetic more thoroughly and in less time.
Account manager and renewals
Read the objection reply and the follow-up; qualification is close to irrelevant, because the account is already qualified. Pair it with the customer service scenario test, which covers the half of the job that is service rather than selling.
Field and technical sales
The discovery notes are the transferable part. Product depth has to come from a round your own team writes, because a test that stays neutral about what you sell cannot contain it.

Where a personality test for sales fits

Search for a sales assessment and half of what comes back is a personality questionnaire, usually resting on the idea that extraversion is what makes a salesperson. It is the most commercially successful assumption in the category and the weakest part of its evidence base. The trait most consistently related to job performance is conscientiousness, and the current meta-analytic estimate puts it at about .19 rather than at the near-certainty vendor pages imply. Extraversion sits lower.

We do not sell a sales personality profile, and that is a position rather than a gap. Under 29 CFR 1607.14(C)(1) a procedure that measures a trait cannot be defended on content validity, so unlike a work sample it cannot rest on visibly sampling the job. It needs criterion evidence gathered on a population like yours, which is what the long-established psychometric vendors spent decades collecting. Our page on personality testing for hiring sets out the numbers and the legal exposure in full.

The practical version: if a trait score has to carry weight in a decision you might have to defend, buy it from a vendor who has the normative data. If what you want to know is whether the person can sell, a work sample answers that more directly, and it is far easier to explain to a candidate who asks why they were turned down.

How long it takes, and where it goes in the process

Twenty-five minutes: roughly eight on the transcript and the notes, seven on the objection reply, five on the deal arithmetic and five on the queue. The clock runs per part, so a candidate who reads the transcript twice is not punished for it.

It goes after the screening call and before the panel. Sending a twenty-five minute exercise to everyone who applies is a reliable way to lose the sales candidates who have options, and sales candidates in particular read a bloated hiring process as a statement about how the company runs its own pipeline.

What it will not tell you

It does not tell you whether somebody will make the calls. Drive, resilience and the willingness to work a cold list show up over a ramp period rather than in twenty-five minutes of written work.

The closest available evidence on that is a reference who managed the person against a number, and it is worth the call. Two further boundaries: nothing here measures how somebody sounds live, so a role that lives on the phone needs a call round on top, and the test stays neutral about industry, so it says nothing about whether a candidate knows your buyer. Both of those are teachable. The judgement this test measures is the part that is not.

Every test has a boundary like this. A test used outside it stops predicting anything, which is the usual reason a hiring team loses faith in testing altogether.

Frequently asked questions

Is a sales aptitude test the same as a sales assessment test?
Not quite, and the difference decides what you can conclude from a result. Aptitude test in this category usually means a trait or general-ability measure, built to predict across jobs rather than within one. This is a work sample: the candidate does a scaled-down version of the actual work and is scored on what comes back. The work sample is the easier one to defend to a candidate who asks why they were turned down, because the connection to the job is visible in the task rather than argued from a correlation.
How do you test sales skills before hiring?
Hand over the material and score the output: a call transcript to qualify, an objection to answer in writing, a deal to do the arithmetic on, a queue to put in order. The usual default, asking a candidate how they handle objections, mostly measures how many times they have answered that question before. Every experienced sales candidate has a rehearsed answer, which is why the answers cluster and why the interview separates people so poorly.
Should we add a personality test for sales?
Only after the work sample, and never as the first filter. A profile earns its place turned into interview questions and loses it turned into a cut-off score. We do not sell one; the reasoning, including the validity numbers and the compliance work that comes with a trait instrument, is on our personality testing for hiring page.
What stops a candidate answering with an AI assistant?
Nothing does, and a vendor selling you a detector is selling something that does not work. The design answer is that the exercises turn on judgement about a specific scenario rather than on producing fluent sales prose, and that the interview afterwards is built from the candidate's own answers. Ask them to defend the deal they dropped or the discount they refused. Someone who did the thinking can do that in a minute.
Does it replace the interview?
No. It replaces the part of the interview where you ask somebody to describe how they qualify and they describe it well. What it frees the interview to do is go at the answers they actually gave, which is harder to prepare for and more useful to sit through.

Tests that pair with this one