Candidate Comparison Software
A shortlist is only useful if you can actually compare the people on it. IntelligencesTest puts every candidate for a role side by side on the same criteria — so “candidate A is stronger on stakeholder judgment, candidate B on analytical reasoning” becomes a statement you can back up, not just a gut feeling.
Why side-by-side comparison changes the judgment itself
This isn’t only a presentation preference. Behavioural researcher Christopher Hsee’s evaluability hypothesis (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1996) found that people judge options far more accurately when evaluating them jointly, side by side, than when judging the same options separately, one at a time. A recruiter reading five candidate reports one after another, days apart, is making the harder version of that judgment; the same recruiter looking at five candidates on one comparable view is making the easier, more accurate one. IntelligencesTest is built around joint comparison specifically because of that gap: the same underlying evidence, read in a format built for comparing rather than for reading in isolation.
What comparison doesn’t try to hide
A comparison view is only trustworthy if it shows genuine near-ties as near-ties, rather than manufacturing a clear winner every time. When two candidates score closely on the criteria that matter most, the comparison view surfaces that directly — which is itself useful information, since it tells a recruiter the deciding factor for this specific search likely sits outside what the assessment measures, in interview chemistry or the client’s own stated priorities.
- Every candidate on a shortlist scored against identical criteria, shown on one screen
- Strengths and risk areas visible at a glance, not buried in separate reports read days apart
- Comparison view feeds directly into the client-ready report, so the same side-by-side logic reaches the client too
Where comparison fits in the workflow
Comparison sits between evaluation and ranking: candidates are already scored individually, and comparison is where those scores become a relative judgment about this specific pool of candidates for this specific role, not an absolute pass/fail line.
Comparison naturally leads to ranking and shortlisting — see how those stages work, or view a sample comparison matrix.
Frequently asked questions
Does the comparison always show a clear top candidate?
No — genuine near-ties are shown as near-ties, which is itself useful information about where the real deciding factor likely sits.
How is comparison different from ranking?
Comparison is the relative judgment across this specific pool for this specific role; ranking takes that comparison and orders the whole pool for review.
Does the same comparison view reach the client?
Yes — the comparison feeds directly into the client-ready report, so the client sees the same side-by-side logic the recruiter used.
Why does joint comparison produce better judgment than reading reports separately?
Research on comparative judgment (Hsee, 1996) found people evaluate options more accurately when they see them together rather than relying on memory of an earlier report.