Skip to main content
AIDiveForge AIDiveForge

Evaluator

Freemium

Most technical screens still treat AI as a cheat code to detect and block — which means they're filtering out the engineers who actually ship production code in 2026, where Copilot and Cursor are table stakes. Evaluator flips that: it grades how well a candidate works *with* AI, not whether they avoided it.

$33/mo billed annually · Free tier: 10 free cycles per month · Checked Oct 18, 2026

Similar tools

Summary

The assessment covers five distinct skills — writing prompts, reading AI-generated code, making surgical fixes, catching every planted hallucination, and live co-coding sessions — scored automatically against rubrics the vendor has built into the platform. You feed it a job description and it generates a role-specific test; the candidate gets questions like finding three bugs in a plausible-looking but broken function. Where the tool earns its keep is the hallucination critique section: it plants fake API calls and off-by-ones, then checks whether candidates catch all of them or stop at the first find. The ceiling is that this is a passive scorer — there is no branching logic, no custom rubric editor described in the docs, and no stated integration with ATS platforms. Teams that need to embed results directly into Greenhouse or Lever are doing that copy-paste manually.

Bottom line: Pick Evaluator when you need a fast signal on whether a candidate can catch an AI hallucination before it hits production; expect friction if your hiring stack requires automated ATS sync or custom scoring rubrics you define yourself.

Pricing Plans

SubscriptionLast verified 3 days ago
Price
$33/mo billed annually
Free Tier
10 free cycles per month

Free

Free

Forever free plan with basic features

  • 10 free cycles
  • Every scoring feature, at lower volume
  • Detailed AI analysis & breakdowns
  • Candidate comparison
  • PDF/CSV export
  • Integrity reports
  • Assessments carry the Evaluator badge

Pro

$33per month
$399/yr

For teams that hire regularly and need more volume. 3,000 assessment cycles per year (~250/mo average). Billed annually.

  • 3,000 assessment cycles per year
  • Everything in Free
  • Remove Powered by Evaluator badge
  • Priority email support
  • $0.50 per additional cycle overage

View full pricing on tryevaluator.com →

Pricing may have changed since last verified. Check the official site for current plans.

Find your fit

Before you choose Evaluator

More options in HR & Recruiting. Compare pricing, platforms, and features side by side.

Browse HR & Recruiting

Pros

  • Generates role-specific assessments from a job description, so a hiring manager does not spend a sprint writing custom questions every time a new requisition opens.
  • Scores prompt quality on context, constraints, and edge-case coverage rather than verbosity, which means strong candidates who write precise, scoped prompts score higher than candidates who write long ones.
  • The hallucination critique section grades thoroughness — all planted bugs, not just the first — so you stop hiring engineers who ship the AI's first answer without checking it.
  • The surgical-fix format penalizes unnecessary refactoring, which surfaces candidates who diagnose accurately rather than rewrite defensively, a distinction that matters when you're reviewing PRs on a codebase you don't own.
  • No card required for the initial free tier, so a team can run a pilot against real candidates before committing budget.

Cons

  • No ATS integration is described on the vendor page, which means every result — score, transcript, critique breakdown — gets exported or copy-pasted manually into Greenhouse, Lever, or wherever your pipeline lives. At hiring volumes above a handful of candidates per week, this becomes a coordinator tax that doesn't go away.
  • There is no API listed and no self-hosted option, so teams in regulated industries or with data-residency requirements have no path to keeping candidate responses on their own infrastructure. Those teams evaluate a competitor with an on-premises option or build their own rubric tooling instead.
  • Custom rubric editing is not described anywhere on the vendor page — the scoring criteria appear to be platform-defined. A team that needs to weight domain-specific criteria (say, SQL hallucinations over TypeScript ones for a data engineering role) is constrained to whatever the platform scores, with no described override.

About

Platforms
Web
API Available
No
Self-Hosted
No
Last Updated
July 1, 2026

Best For

Who it's for

  • Hiring managers seeking AI-fluent engineers
  • Technical recruiters evaluating modern coding workflows
  • Companies using Copilot, Cursor, or Claude Code in daily work
  • Teams wanting to identify top-quartile candidates who fix AI hallucinations

What it does well

  • Screening engineering candidates for AI collaboration proficiency
  • Generating role-specific technical assessments from job descriptions
  • Evaluating prompt quality and ability to critique AI-generated code
  • Recording and reviewing live candidate interactions with AI assistants

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Evaluator free?
Evaluator offers a free option alongside paid upgrades. Pricing: $33/mo billed annually. Check the current allowances and terms before choosing a plan.
What platforms does Evaluator support?
Evaluator is available on: Web.

Screening for AI collaboration skill has no established playbook — most platforms still score whether a candidate wrote code from scratch, which tells you nothing about how they handle a Cursor-generated function that looks right and isn’t. Evaluator is a technical assessment generator that produces role-specific tests from a job description, scores candidate responses automatically, and focuses the rubric entirely on AI collaboration proficiency alongside the fundamentals: reading code, debugging, and writing.

The differentiating feature is what the vendor calls the five-test framework. Prompt quality is scored on context, constraints, edge-case handling, and acceptance criteria — not length. Reading AI code asks candidates to spot the over-engineered class and the swallowed error, not just describe what the function does. The surgical fix question penalizes broad refactors that miss the planted bug. The critique section plants multiple hallucinations — fake library calls, off-by-ones, silent catches — and grades whether the candidate finds all of them or declares victory after the first. The vendor states a live co-coding session rounds out the assessment, though the page content on that section is truncated.

This fits hiring pipelines where engineering teams are already running Copilot, Cursor, or Claude Code daily and want a screen that reflects that workflow. The vendor offers 10 free assessments per month with no card required, which covers initial pilots. Where the tool breaks: there is no self-hosted option, no API described on the page, and no ATS integration mentioned — teams running high-volume pipelines will be managing results outside their existing tooling. Custom rubric editing is not described, so teams with proprietary scoring criteria are working within whatever the platform defines.

Share This Tool

Back to comparison
Contribute

Related Listings

BusinessFreemium

Agentype

Spotter runs the lead lifecycle on autopilot: capturing contacts from multiple listing sources, qualifying them through SMS and WhatsApp…

VerifiedFreemium
View Agentype
BusinessFreemium

WhaleWatch

The platform monitors 13F-HR filings continuously, converts raw position data into a dashboard organized by fund and ticker, and surfaces…

VerifiedFreemium
View WhaleWatch