Vendor pricing
What HireVue costs, and why nobody quoting a number read it from HireVue
Its pricing page names two packages and carries no figures at all. Every price on this search is secondhand, and they all trace back to the same two places.
Every other page in this cluster starts by reading a number off a vendor’s own website. This one cannot, because there is no number to read.
HireVue’s pricing page, fetched on 11 August 2026, names an Essential package and a Premium package, and then stops. No figure, no feature comparison between the two, no trial, no self-serve purchase, not even a hint at the unit of billing. It is the only page in this category we have checked where the word pricing appears in the URL and no price appears on the page.
So this page does the next best thing. It traces every figure circulating for this search back to whoever first published it, and shows you how short that chain actually is.
What HireVue publishes
| What a buyer wants from a pricing page | What hirevue.com/pricing carries |
|---|---|
| A price, or a floor | None. No currency symbol anywhere on the page |
| Plan names | Two: “the Essential package” and “the Premium package” |
| What separates the two plans | Nothing. Neither package has a feature list on this page |
| The unit of billing | Not stated. No mention of seats, candidates, applicants or headcount |
| Contract length or minimum | Not stated |
| A free plan or trial | Neither. Every route is “Request Demo” |
| Self-serve purchase | None |
| What is there instead | An ROI calculator, one customer quote and five FAQs, none of which is about money |
Read from hirevue.com/pricing on 11 August 2026.
The five FAQs are worth quoting, because they are the closest that page comes to describing the purchase. HireVue states that it is “free for candidates, and there are no app downloads required”, that its professional services team will “be your change management partners”, that it has “deep integrations with the leading ATS and CRM technology companies”, that it meets “SOC 2 Type 2, ISO/IEC 27001:2013” and is “the only virtual interviewing and assessment provider FedRAMP Certified”, and that support runs “24/7 … in 20+ different languages”.
Every one of those describes an enterprise sale. None of them is a number.
Six sources, one figure, and no vendor behind it
Each row below was read on 11 August 2026. The date column is the date each source puts on itself, not the date we read it.
| Source | Figure it publishes | What the figure is attached to | What the source says its evidence is | Date the source claims |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HireVue, pricing page | None | Essential and Premium packages | n/a | Live page, read 11 August 2026 |
| Vendr buyer guide | “$49,855 Avg Contract Value”, maximum “around $145,000” | Contracts brokered by Vendr | “Vendr’s internal transaction data”, from “more than 5 completed deals and 3 unique purchasers” | No update date on the page |
| Pin | Essential around $35,000/year; Enterprise around $50,000 to $100,000+; Premium “six figures” | Three tiers | “Vendr’s procurement database, G2 reviewer disclosures, and third-party analyst estimates” | Published 6 January 2026, modified 8 June 2026 |
| Willo | “starts around $35,000 per year” | The Essentials package | “G2 reviewer data”, captured February 2026 | Last updated 24 April 2026 |
| Leon Consulting | Essentials $25,000 to $40,000/year; Enterprise $40,000+; top of range $145,000+ | Three tiers | “buyer-reported contract data and third-party procurement reports, 2025 to 2026” | Last updated July 2026 |
| Prepzo | Essential around $35,000/year minimum; Enterprise $75,000 to $150,000; Premium $200,000+ | Three tiers | “quote disclosures on G2, Capterra, and procurement communities” | 18 May 2026 |
| InterviewFlowAI | Minimum around $35,000/year; mid-market $40,000 to $75,000; large enterprise $100,000+ | A contract minimum | “industry data and customer reviews”, no specific source named | 6 May 2026 |
| Hirevire | Base platform $25,000 to $50,000/year; year-one total $40,000 to $90,000 | Its own extrapolation | “enterprise buyer reports”, no source named | 26 February 2026 |
HireVue’s own statements were read from hirevue.com/pricing and hirevue.com/why-hirevue/our-science on 11 August 2026; every third-party figure was read from the named page the same day. Reddit was searched the same day, and what it returned is a section of its own below. Two sources are missing from the table on purpose: g2.com and capterra.com both refused our requests on 11 August 2026, so we are not quoting either. That is worth flagging rather than hiding, because G2 is the source four of the pages above name for their number, and we could not check what it says.
Read the fourth column rather than the second, and the whole thing collapses.
Six pages, one number, zero primary sources. Six of the seven third-party entries land on roughly $35,000 as the floor, and not one of them read it from HireVue. Two name no source at all. The rest point at G2 reviewer comments, Vendr, or “procurement communities”, which is a category rather than a citation.
The one dataset with real transactions in it is very small. Vendr brokers software contracts and publishes aggregates, so it is the strongest source here by some distance, and it is the source several of the others lean on. Its HireVue page reports an average contract value of $49,855 a year and a maximum “around $145,000”, drawn from “more than 5 completed deals and 3 unique purchasers”. Three buyers is not a market rate, and an average across five contracts moves several thousand dollars if one of them is unusual. Vendr also has an interest in the answer, since the page exists to sell its negotiation service, and it states it has no average savings data for HireVue at all. Use the figure as a sighting shot and nothing more.
The sources cannot even agree how many packages exist. HireVue’s own page names two: Essential and Premium. Six of the pages above describe three, inserting an Enterprise tier between them, and they disagree on what the first one is called. If the tier structure in circulation is wrong, the prices pinned to those tiers cannot be right either.
The spread is the tell. For the same product in the same year, the published guesses run from $25,000 to $200,000+ a year. That is not a market with a known entry price. It is a market where nobody outside the sales process knows, and everybody writing about it is rounding somebody else’s rounding.
None of this means $35,000 is wrong. It means no page on the internet, this one included, can tell you it is right.
Nobody on Reddit says what they paid either
There is usually one more place to look. When a vendor publishes nothing, practitioners fill the gap: on our Wonderlic cost page, a recruiting thread is where the Criteria CCAT price and a Predictive Index quote actually surfaced, in the buyers’ own words.
That does not happen here. We ran seven price-shaped queries against Reddit search on 11 August 2026, surfacing 164 unique threads, and read every buyer-side discussion among them with ten or more comments. Not one names a figure that anyone paid for HireVue. Not a quote, not a renewal, not a range.
What occupies that space instead is worth seeing, because it is where a hurried buyer would land:
| Subreddit | Subscribers | Who posts | What it publishes about HireVue |
|---|---|---|---|
| r/hiretruffle | 79 | All 100 most recent posts from one account | Titles including “One-way interview software: enterprise pricing vs mid-market pricing” and “We inherited HireVue from a previous HR director. Here’s why we switched.” Its own description says it is “Built around Truffle’s AI-assisted candidate screening” |
| r/Hirevire | 401 | All 100 most recent posts from one account | Titles including “Before You Buy HireVue in 2026, Ask These 5 Questions” and “HireVue Is Great… Until You’re Not an Enterprise” |
Read on 11 August 2026. Both are competitors to HireVue running a subreddit named after their own product. Neither is a community in any sense that matters, and one of them closes a loop with the table above: the account posting all 100 entries in r/Hirevire shares a name with the author of the Hirevire review we listed as a source. The same person supplies the estimate and the discussion of the estimate.
The genuine practitioner voice that does exist is not about price at all, and it is more useful than the numbers. In a r/recruiting thread from 29 June 2026 about high-volume async screening, the highest-scoring reply is a recruiter describing exactly the shape the arithmetic below predicts:
“I loved hirevue when I was recruiting entry level sales people. We’d get high volume. It helped people with little to no experience get an opportunity to sell themselves who otherwise didn’t have a great resume.”
The same commenter adds that candidates who completed the HireVue “had a much higher success rate of onboarding and getting through training”. The counterweight arrives two comments later, from someone arguing the opposite end of the market: “I’d steer away from it for anything highly skilled as they’ll resent having to do it.”
That is the whole buying decision in two sentences, and neither of them is a price. The thread’s original poster does say pricing “gets pretty steep once you’re dealing with decent volume”, but that post also promotes a competing product, so we would not lean on it.
Treat the absence as information. For Wonderlic we could at least catch competitors’ prices being discussed by the people paying them. For HireVue there is vendor silence, thin broker data, six pages citing each other, and no practitioner corroboration anywhere we could find.
The unit of billing matters more than the floor
If HireVue published one thing, this is the thing worth having. It does not.
The third-party pages consistently describe an annual platform subscription sized by applicant volume rather than by recruiter seats, with a minimum commitment and no monthly option. That is plausible and it fits the product, but no source can point at HireVue saying it, so it belongs in your demo questions rather than in your budget.
What we can do is show what the reported floor implies, and label the arithmetic as ours. Taking $35,000 and Vendr’s $49,855 average, divided by candidates screened in a year:
| Candidates screened in a year | At a $35,000 floor | At Vendr’s $49,855 average |
|---|---|---|
| 500 | $70.00 each | $99.71 each |
| 2,000 | $17.50 each | $24.93 each |
| 10,000 | $3.50 each | $4.99 each |
| 50,000 | $0.70 each | $1.00 each |
That division is ours, built on figures no vendor confirms, and it has an obvious limit: a company screening 50,000 candidates is not being quoted the floor. Redo it with your own number when you have one.
The shape survives the uncertainty, and the shape is the useful part. An annual platform subscription is astonishingly cheap at volume and indefensible below it. At 50,000 candidates HireVue costs under a dollar a head and nothing else in this market comes close. At 500 it is $70 a head before anyone has been interviewed, and the floor alone exceeds most of what a small team spends on hiring in a year.
Then there is year one. Leon Consulting puts HireVue implementation and onboarding at $15,000 to $40,000 as a one-time fee, on a page last updated July 2026, and reports the same buyer-sourced provenance as its other figures. Unverified, like everything else here, and large enough that you should get it in the quote rather than discovering it in the statement of work.
What you are actually buying
Worth being precise, because it decides whether any of the above is even relevant to you.
HireVue is a video interviewing platform with assessments attached. It is not a test library, and it is not a competitor to per-candidate skills testing in any useful sense. Its platform navigation on 11 August 2026 lists Assessment Builder, Virtual Job Tryout, Game-Based Assessments, Technical Assessments, Language Proficiency Tests and an AI Hiring Agent, alongside live and on-demand interviewing.
The part that justifies an enterprise price is the part per-candidate tools do not have. HireVue’s science page, read the same day, describes a team of over thirty industrial and organisational psychologists and data scientists, models built on more than 70 million interviews, and a compliance list naming the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, the EEOC, the ADEA, the ADA, GDPR and CCPA. It publishes two external audits by name: an ORCAA algorithmic audit and a Landers IO psychology audit.
We will not pretend that is marketing. For an employer running tens of thousands of candidates through an automated process, documented validation and a published bias audit are not a nice-to-have, they are the thing that answers the question when the process is challenged. Very little else in this category publishes anything comparable, and that gap is a legitimate reason the price is what it is.
Where the regulatory cost sits
AI-scored video interviewing is the most heavily regulated corner of hiring assessment, and the obligations land on the employer rather than only on the vendor. Illinois regulates AI analysis of recorded video interviews through notice, explanation, consent and deletion on request. New York City Local Law 144 requires an independent bias audit within the past year, a public summary and ten business days of candidate notice for automated tools that substantially assist a hiring decision.
Both are set out properly on our compliance page, along with the EEOC rules underneath them, and there is no point restating them here.
The relevant point for a pricing page is narrower. Buying an AI interviewing platform means buying an audit obligation with it, so a vendor that already publishes bias-audit documentation is removing work you would otherwise have to commission. That is part of the price you are comparing, and it is the part cheap alternatives quietly leave on your side of the line.
How the pricing models compare
Shapes, not a ranking. None of these prices is better than the others until you know your own volume.
| Vendor | What you buy | What you commit to | Entry cost published? |
|---|---|---|---|
| HireVue | Annual platform subscription: video interviewing plus assessments and AI scoring | Annual, sales-gated, no self-serve route | No. Two packages named, no figure attached to either |
| The Predictive Index | Annual subscription priced by headcount, assessments uncapped | 12 months, annual only | Floor only: from $10,000/year |
| TestGorilla | Annual plan with a credit allocation | 12 months | Yes: free plan at $0, Core at $1,704/year |
| SharpAssessment | Per candidate assessed, packs that do not expire | No annual contract, no seat charges | Yes: $3 per candidate, or $69 for 25 |
The Predictive Index and TestGorilla figures were read from each vendor’s own page on 30 July 2026; the working is on Predictive Index pricing and TestGorilla pricing. Ours is the only row written by the vendor it describes, so read it accordingly, and check it against our own pricing page, which is the same standard we are applying to HireVue when we say two package names is not a price.
Note what the first row does to the rest of the table. The other three publish something you can act on without talking to anyone. HireVue publishes a demo form.
Nine questions to take into the demo
When a vendor publishes nothing, the quote is the price, and the quality of the quote depends entirely on what you ask before it is written.
- What is the unit? Are we buying applicants, completed interviews, hires, recruiter seats or company headcount?
- What is the minimum annual commitment, and what happens to it if our hiring volume falls by half?
- What exactly separates Essential from Premium, in writing, and which one includes AI scoring and game-based assessments?
- What is the total year-one figure including implementation, onboarding, training and ATS integration work?
- What is the contract term, is a multi-year commitment required, and is the renewal increase capped?
- For the assessments we would use, what validity evidence exists, and has adverse impact been analysed for roles like ours?
- Which of your tools count as automated employment decision tools under NYC Local Law 144, and will you supply an independent bias audit dated within the past year that we can publish?
- What notice, consent and deletion workflow do you provide for candidates covered by the Illinois AI video interview rules, and who is responsible for running it?
- Is any part of this quote contingent on us acting as a reference or case study?
Questions six through eight are the ones most likely to get a reassuring answer in the room and a vaguer one in writing. Get them in writing.
Where we fit, honestly
Not as a HireVue alternative, and it would be dishonest to frame this page as one. We do not do video interviewing, we do not do AI scoring of recorded answers, and we have no bias audit or published validity study, which our compliance page says in plainer terms than this. If you are screening 20,000 applicants a year for a call centre network, HireVue is in the category built for that and we are not in it.
What we do is narrower and priced differently on purpose. Practical and job-knowledge tests from the assessment library, scored against criteria you set in advance, charged at $3 per candidate assessed with packs at $69 for 25, $249 for 100 and $499 for 250. No annual contract, no seat charge, no minimum commitment and no demo required to see a number.
That is aimed at the buyer an annual platform subscription serves worst: the team hiring five to fifty people a year, in bursts, who cannot commit a year of budget in January to a volume they will not know until September. If that is you, the honest reading of everything above is that HireVue’s floor is larger than your whole hiring budget, and the comparison was never really about price.
If you want the wider market rather than one vendor, pre-employment testing companies puts thirteen of them side by side on published prices. If you want to see what a scored work sample looks like for a role you are hiring now, set up an assessment and you will have the cost for your volume in about a minute.