ScreeningHive alternatives: real 2026 pricing, feature gaps, and 7 tools to consider

ScreeningHive doesn’t pitch itself as a general video interview tool. Its own site names the customers it’s built for: staffing agencies, BPO and call centers, healthcare, retail, and campus recruiters, the kind of teams running hundreds of candidates through the same handful of roles on repeat. If you run a small staffing book or you’re the one screening seasonal hires for three locations, that’s you.

So this isn’t the usual “here are some alternatives” roundup. We pulled ScreeningHive’s current pricing straight from its pricing page, cross-checked it against Capterra, and read its own features page line by line to see what it admits it doesn’t do. Then we priced and feature-checked seven tools people actually switch to, tool by tool, not just a table with a one-line summary. If you’ve read a ScreeningHive comparison before and it felt interchangeable with three other posts, this one is trying not to be that.

What ScreeningHive actually costs right now

As of August 2026, ScreeningHive still publishes four tiers on its pricing page:

• Free: $0/month, 1 user, 5 interviews, custom branding included, no card required
• Starter: $19/month ($15/month billed annually), 5 users, 50 interviews per period
• Team: $49/month ($39/month billed annually), 10 users, 150 interviews per period, marked as its most popular plan
• Enterprise: $99/month ($79/month billed annually), unlimited users, 500 interviews per period

Capterra lists the same starting price and the same three paid tiers, so this checks out from two directions. Worth flagging: these numbers are noticeably lower than what a comparison post might have shown you earlier this year, when ScreeningHive’s list prices sat higher before the current discounts. If you’re pricing ScreeningHive against a quote or a screenshot from a few months ago, pull a fresh number before you decide anything.

The policies matter as much as the sticker price. ScreeningHive’s terms say there are no refunds once a subscription is activated, and downgrades only take effect at the end of your current billing period. If you’re on the free plan, interviews older than six months get archived and become inaccessible. None of that is unusual for this category, but it’s the kind of detail that’s easy to miss until you’re the one trying to downgrade mid-cycle.

What ScreeningHive does well, and who it’s actually for

ScreeningHive’s homepage leans hard into one claim: save up to 70% of your time on screening. By its own numbers, it’s run more than 50,000 interviews for over 1,000 hiring teams across 100+ countries, and it claims a 94% candidate completion rate against 60% for traditional phone screening, plus a library of 2,000+ template questions across 100+ job titles. Those are ScreeningHive’s figures, not independently audited ones, but they’re consistent with what a lean one-way video tool is actually good at: getting a structured first-round question out to a lot of candidates fast, with automated reminders that cut down on no-shows.

That’s a real fit if your bottleneck is collection, not review. A staffing agency running the same intake screen across dozens of open reqs, or a retail chain doing seasonal hiring across a dozen stores, gets genuine value from bulk invites and a templated interview that doesn’t need to be rebuilt every time.

Where ScreeningHive runs out of road

Read ScreeningHive’s own features page today and the gaps are mostly the same ones a February reader would have found, just described in slightly softer language. There’s still no mention of live or scheduled interviews anywhere on it. There’s still no calendar or booking feature, just automated invitations and follow-up reminders that reduce no-shows without adding scheduling. There’s still no skills testing or assessment functionality. And ATS integration is now described as letting you “connect ScreeningHive with your ATS to keep applicant data and video interviews organized in one workflow,” but the fine print underneath still says “ATS Integrations via Open APIs,” with no specific platform named. That phrasing is friendlier than before. The underlying reality (you or a developer builds the connection, rather than turning on a listed Greenhouse or Bullhorn integration) hasn’t changed.

The AI gap is the other one worth naming plainly. ScreeningHive’s feature page describes rating, commenting, and comparing candidates with “structured evaluation tools,” but it doesn’t mention transcription, AI summaries, or automated scoring anywhere. It shows up in reviews too: even reviewers who otherwise rate the product well (it holds a 4.8 out of 5 average on Capterra, though on a small base of four reviews there) have flagged wanting more AI-driven features. Right now, a ScreeningHive interview gets recorded, rated by whoever on your team watches it, and shared. The watching is still entirely on you.

That’s fine at 50 interviews a month. It stops being fine once your team is running 150 or 500 a period, which is exactly the volume ScreeningHive’s own Team and Enterprise plans are priced for. More interviews collected faster just means more video sitting in a queue waiting for a human to watch it start to finish.

Where Truffle fits differently

Truffle is an AI screening platform that combines resume screening, one-way video interviews, and talent assessments, and it’s built around the part ScreeningHive’s own gaps point to: review, not just collection. You set your criteria once, and every response gets transcribed, scored against what you asked for (AI Match), summarized, and cut down into a 30 to 40 second Candidate Shorts clip so you’re not watching every recording end to end. Add Personality, Situational Judgment, or Environment Fit assessments alongside video and resumes for signal a recording alone can’t give you. AI surfaces the evidence. You still make the call on who moves forward.

For a small agency running screening for multiple clients, or an owner-operator filling the same few roles every month, that’s the difference between “here are 40 videos” and “here are your top 8, ranked, with why.” Plans start at $49/month, credit-based, with every feature (resume screening, one-way interviews, and assessments) on every tier, unlimited users and unlimited positions, and a 7-day free trial with 30 credits and no card required.

7 ScreeningHive alternatives, priced and feature-checked

A one-line comparison table hides more than it shows in this category, since two tools priced within $50 of each other can solve completely different problems. Here’s what each one actually costs and does, as of August 2026.

Truffle: best for review speed at recurring, repeat-role volume

From $49/month, credit-based, with resume screening, one-way interviews, and assessments included on every plan. A resume costs 1 credit, an assessed candidate costs 2, and a completed one-way interview costs 5, all drawn from one shared monthly pool that rolls over. Where it differs from a pure video tool: AI Match scores every candidate against your criteria, AI summaries give you the key takeaways before you watch, and Candidate Shorts surface the most relevant 30 to 40 seconds of each response. The honest tradeoff: it’s not a full ATS, and it’s a younger company than most names on this list, so weigh that against how much review time it saves you.

Spark Hire: best for one-way and live interviews in one tool

Spark Hire now sells its video product (Meet) separately from its ATS (Recruit). Meet runs $299/month month-to-month, capped at 5 jobs and 5 users, or $249/month billed annually with unlimited jobs and users. If you also want the ATS, Recruit starts at $335/month for the Pro tier (6,000 AI resume reviews a year) and $499/month for Growth (24,000 a year), both annual-only contracts. As of this year, there’s no free trial on any Spark Hire product. It keeps the familiar watch, rate, and share workflow, and it’s a genuine option if you want live interviews without switching tools mid-process, but check which piece (video, ATS, or both) you’re actually pricing before you compare it to a single number.

Willo: best for candidate experience and compliance checks

Willo’s self-serve tiers are Growth and Scale. Growth runs $209/month billed annually or $279/month month-to-month, for up to 4 users and 2 assessments. Scale runs $307/month billed annually or $409/month month-to-month, for up to 20 users and 10 assessments. Enterprise is custom-quoted. Both self-serve tiers are built around SOC 2 and GDPR compliance controls, which matters if you’re screening candidates across regions with real data-handling requirements. It’s a meaningfully higher price point than ScreeningHive for that compliance layer.

Hireflix: best for the simplest possible one-way step

Hireflix keeps flat, headcount-based pricing: $75/month for companies under 50 employees, $150/month for 50 to 250 employees, and custom pricing for larger teams and agencies. All prices are annual-billed, and every plan includes unlimited seats, positions, and responses, so your bill doesn’t move with interview volume the way ScreeningHive’s does. There’s a 1-month free trial and no forever-free tier. If ScreeningHive’s per-interview caps are the actual friction, Hireflix removes that variable entirely.

Jobma: best for multiple interview formats in one workflow

Jobma doesn’t publish pricing, so you’ll need a quote. What it adds over ScreeningHive is format range: you can build interviews mixing video, audio, written, multiple-choice, and coding questions in a single workflow, useful if you’re screening for both soft skills and a technical check. It also includes AI transcripts and AI-assisted scoring, plus proctoring that flags tab-switching, multiple faces, or copy-paste activity during an interview, none of which ScreeningHive offers. The tradeoff is the same one you get with any “contact sales” tool: no published number to compare against a self-serve plan.

Ducknowl: best for high-volume screening plus built-in skills tests

Ducknowl is also quote-based and usage-priced, with third-party estimates on published pricing pages varying widely enough that we won’t repeat a specific figure here. What’s verifiable is the feature set: video screening, resume parsing, 200+ built-in skill tests that report basic, mid-level, or advanced proficiency, and a candidate inventory that lets you reuse a candidate’s prior screening data instead of running them through the whole process again. It’s built and marketed specifically for staffing agencies, which puts it closer to Truffle’s small-agency use case than most names here, just without a published price to weigh against it.

VidCruiter: best for a broader recruiting suite with scheduling

VidCruiter doesn’t publish pricing either, and third-party trackers show wide variance (from roughly $199/month for a single user up to enterprise contracts around $5,000/year), so treat any specific number as a rough signal, not a quote. What it verifiably includes: a full applicant tracking layer (requisitions, workflows, compliance logs), a scheduling module with calendar sync across Google and Outlook, multi-interviewer coordination, and integrations with Workday, SAP, Oracle, ADP, and UKG. That’s real breadth ScreeningHive doesn’t attempt, aimed at teams that need scheduling and ATS-grade workflow in the same tool, not just video collection.

HireVue: best for enterprise governance requirements

HireVue doesn’t publish pricing on its site, and it requires a sales conversation and typically a multi-year contract. Third-party pricing trackers that follow enterprise HR software consistently put its entry-level tier around $35,000 a year, scaling well past $100,000 for larger deployments, though HireVue itself has never confirmed a number, so treat that as a directional estimate, not a quote. It’s built for enterprise-scale structured interviewing and assessment governance, the kind of implementation timeline and procurement process a small staffing book or single-location business doesn’t need this week.

A few of these solve genuinely different problems than ScreeningHive, not just cheaper or pricier versions of it. If you’re already stitching together video, testing, and an agency-style candidate pipeline, Jobma and Ducknowl both trade ScreeningHive’s simplicity for that breadth, at the cost of a published number. And if what you actually need is enterprise governance, longer implementation timelines, and add-on modules, VidCruiter and HireVue are built for that scale, not for a team trying to move fast this week.

What to check before you switch

Most of the actual work in switching off ScreeningHive isn’t technical. It’s making sure the new tool covers the specific things ScreeningHive’s plan structure and open-API approach leave to you:

• ATS connection: Since ScreeningHive’s own integration is an unnamed open API, ask any alternative directly whether your ATS has a named, working connector, not just “API access.” Confirm whether a completed interview actually moves a candidate’s stage or just leaves a link in notes.
• Interview and user caps: ScreeningHive prices by both users and interviews per period. If you’re near a tier boundary (50, 150, or 500 interviews), model your actual monthly volume against the new tool’s limits before you commit, especially during a seasonal hiring spike.
• Data retention: ScreeningHive archives free-plan interviews after six months. Ask any tool you’re evaluating what happens to old recordings and transcripts, and whether that changes if you downgrade.
• Review time, not just collection time: Time a real batch. Watch 10 ScreeningHive-style raw recordings start to finish, then time reviewing the same 10 candidates in a tool that adds transcripts, summaries, or scoring. That gap is the real number to weigh against any price difference.

The honest tradeoff

ScreeningHive is a competent, inexpensive tool for exactly what it says it is: collecting structured one-way video answers at volume, without live scheduling getting in the way. If your hiring runs through a staffing book or a seasonal spike and your team can still watch what comes in, it does that job at a fair price, and its published policies (no refunds, end-of-period downgrades) are at least clearly stated.

Where it stops being enough is the point ScreeningHive’s own features page still doesn’t claim to solve: once video piles up faster than a person can watch it, and once you want more than a recording to decide who’s worth a conversation. That’s a different tool, not a better version of the same one.

If that’s where you are, see Truffle’s plans and try it free for 7 days. No card required.

FAQs about ScreeningHive alternatives

Is ScreeningHive’s pricing actually cheaper than it used to be?

Based on what’s published on ScreeningHive’s own pricing page today, yes: current tiers still run $19, $49, and $99 a month (with lower annual rates), each meaningfully below the numbers a comparison page might have shown earlier in 2026. Always check the live pricing page before you compare, not a screenshot.

Does ScreeningHive integrate with my ATS?

ScreeningHive’s features page now frames ATS integration as connecting your ATS to keep data organized in one workflow, but the underlying mechanism is still “Open APIs,” with no specific platforms named. In practice, that usually means a developer needs to build the connection rather than turning on a listed integration. Confirm this directly with ScreeningHive for your specific ATS before you assume it’s plug-and-play.

Does ScreeningHive support live video interviews or scheduling?

No. Its own product pages describe one-way, pre-recorded video only, plus automated invitations and reminders, not a booking or calendar feature. If you need live interviews or built-in scheduling in the same tool, look at Spark Hire or VidCruiter instead.

Which ScreeningHive alternative is best for a small agency or owner-operator?

If review time is the actual bottleneck (not just collecting more video), Truffle and Hireflix are built for lean, self-serve buying without a sales call. Ducknowl is worth a look too if built-in skills testing matters more than published pricing. If you need live interviews as well, Spark Hire is the more direct swap. Enterprise-oriented tools like HireVue and VidCruiter are usually more tool than a small team needs.

Is it worth paying more than ScreeningHive for AI-assisted screening?

It’s worth it when the AI reduces how long you spend watching video, not just how fast you can send it. Look for tools where AI produces summaries and match scores tied to criteria you set, with humans still making the final call, rather than tools that only add AI as a checkbox.