Why talent teams pick AsyncView over the usual suspects
Live the same afternoon
No implementation project. Build an interview from a template, send the link, and review the first answers before you log off.
Candidates complete it
Candidates finish, because it runs on any phone with no app, a practice question first and a human welcome video.
Structured, so it is fair
Same questions, same scorecard, same scale for everyone. Blind review and calibration reports keep bias out of every round.
Managers actually review
Side-by-side playback at 1.5×, transcripts and AI summaries mean a hiring manager clears twenty candidates in a lunch break.
Serious about privacy
Private recordings only your team can watch, automatic deletion rules and candidate data requests handled in-app.
Pricing without surprises
Flat monthly plans, unlimited candidates, free shortlist viewers, and you can export your interviews to CSV any time.
AsyncView vs. the usual way
The same interview, done two ways.
| Interview | AsyncView | Phone screens |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduling | No scheduling | Emails to find a time |
| When candidates answer | Any time | Office hours only |
| Questions | Same for everyone | Change call to call |
| Your review time | When you're free, at 2× | Every call, full length |
| Hiring manager | Watches the answers | Reads your notes |
| What you keep | Video and transcript | Your notes |
Every candidate gets a fair interview, and a clear answer
Every candidate for a role answers the same questions, with the same time to think, on a link that works on the phone in their pocket. Your team gets every answer in one place, ready to watch, score and reply to, shortlisted or not.
- No account or app for candidates, ever
- A practice question before the real one
- People make every hiring decision, not the software
Try AsyncView on one live role.
Run it beside your current process. Keep the one your candidates prefer.