What are the alternatives to Talkpush for BPO hiring in the Philippines?
Choosing between Talkpush and AssessAll is the decision of whether the English screen should live inside the application funnel or beside it. Talkpush is an applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM whose TalkScore module scores spoken English in the same conversation. AssessAll is a measurement platform with no ATS, delivered as a proctored link beside whatever system you run.
What Talkpush is genuinely good at
Read on their own pages on 22 September 2026. Where a figure is the vendor’s own self-report it is attributed rather than asserted — a competitor cannot verify another company’s internal numbers and should not write as though it could.
It is the funnel, not just the test. Talkpush describes itself as an AI-powered applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM built for high-volume hiring, with candidates engaged over WhatsApp, Facebook, SMS and TikTok, plus onboarding, document collection and contract workflow. AssessAll has no applicant tracking system, no sourcing and no messaging channels at all.
Source: talkpush.com — homeTalkScore publishes its scoring scheme in unusual detail, in a public help centre rather than in a brochure: a single 0–5 overall score, five English dimensions each scored 0–10 (fluency, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, comprehension), a CEFR mapping from A0 to C2 with the numeric range printed for each level, twelve named soft skills scored 0–5 against defined rubrics, and assessment lengths from about 5 to about 10 minutes.
Source: help.talkpush.com — What is TalkScore? (article updated 19 June 2026)Session-integrity mechanisms AssessAll does not ship. A Talkpush case study states that Voice ID, video proctoring and reading detection lock each session to the actual candidate, and that retake rules are fully configurable. AssessAll has no voice biometric and no read-aloud detection.
Source: talkpush.com — Cognizant proctoring case studySpeed at the very front of the funnel. The BPO page describes qualifying leads within five minutes at the front of the funnel so recruiters only handle candidates who already have the required skills, and the TalkScore page says a candidate receives a response in seconds.
Source: talkpush.com — BPOScale in this exact market, as Talkpush reports it. The BPO page states a 57% decrease in time to hire, a 114% increase in volume of hires, a 110% increase in recruiter productivity, double the completion rates on job applications, and a Concentrix engagement that automated 100,000 annual hires. These are the vendor's own figures and AssessAll cannot verify another company's internal numbers.
As stated on talkpush.com — BPODoes Talkpush publish a price?
No price is published. Checked 22 September 2026: the pricing page carries no figure in any currency — four separate Get a quote calls to action and a Book a Demo link — and the TalkScore product page carries no price either. Quoted on request is a normal enterprise model and is not a criticism; it does mean a like-for-like cost comparison is impossible until you are already in a sales process.
Checked on talkpush.com — pricingAssessAll publishes its unit price: 1 credit = US$0.50, and a typical BPO screening assessment set runs 15–26 credits, i.e. US$7.50–13 per candidate. Volume packs discount up to 13%, there is no seat licence and no annual minimum, and new organisations get 250 free credits.
The full price sheetSide by side
An applicant tracking system and recruitment CRM for high-volume hiring, with an assessment module (TalkScore) inside it.
A measurement platform with no ATS, no CRM and no sourcing. It returns a ranked, integrity-banded result that you carry into whatever system you already run.
For most buyers this row decides the shortlist on its own, and it decides it in their favour if you are replacing a hiring system rather than adding evidence to one.
Inside the application conversation, on the channel the candidate already applied on — WhatsApp, Facebook, SMS or TikTok are the channels named on their own site.
A share link or QR code with no candidate account. Something else has to send it, because AssessAll does not own the conversation.
Completion rate is a property of the funnel, and in this comparison the funnel is theirs.
Overall 0–5; five dimensions each 0–10; CEFR A0 to C2 with the numeric range printed per level (A1 is 1.0–2.3, C2 is 9.5–10.0). Read in the public help centre, article updated 19 June 2026.
A 10–90 reporting scale with four subscales — Sentence Mastery, Vocabulary, Fluency, Pronunciation — published composite weights of 0.30, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.25, and CEFR band boundaries where B2 is 53–66.
This is the one dimension on which both vendors are equally transparent, and it is rarer in this category than it ought to be. Most platforms publish a description of a score and no band table at all.
The TalkScore help centre states that results are instant and gives no reliability coefficient, no standard error of measurement, no validation study and no norm group. Checked 22 September 2026.
The same absence. AssessAll publishes no validation study and no norm group for its English scale, and its own band boundaries are documented in the code as a launch calibration rather than as empirically derived cut scores.
This is a fact about the lane rather than about either product. Ask both vendors, in writing, what the error is around the number you are about to reject people on.
Not compared. AssessAll has not found a Talkpush statement of what the system does at a band boundary, so nothing is claimed about one.
Candidates scoring within four scale points below the cut are labelled borderline for a human to review rather than rejected outright, on a default voice-process cut of 53.
Voice ID, video proctoring and reading detection, with configurable retake rules, per the Cognizant case study.
Photo evidence, face detection for an absent or additional face, ambient speech, screen capture, gaze, device checks, and a published weight table with stated thresholds — low under 5 points, medium 5–14, high 15 or more. No voice biometric and no read-aloud detection.
The two mechanisms are not the same, and on candidate identity the difference runs in their favour.
Twelve named soft skills scored 0–5 against defined rubrics, including Communication Skills, Customer Service Orientation, Problem Solving and Teamwork and Collaboration.
Customer-interaction situational judgement scored as separate items in the same sitting, alongside the English subscales and typing where the process needs it.
Not compared on depth. AssessAll has not opened a TalkScore soft-skill report, so nothing is claimed about what its rubric output looks like.
When to choose Talkpush instead
These are the situations in which this page recommends the other vendor. They are here because a comparison with no such section is an advertisement, and because the fastest way to waste a quarter is to shortlist a platform that cannot do the thing you needed.
The bottleneck is applicants not finishing the application, rather than the wrong applicants getting through.
Completion is a property of the funnel. Talkpush's own BPO page claims double the completion rates on job applications, and AssessAll has no application funnel to improve.
You want one system for sourcing, screening, candidate comms and onboarding.
Talkpush is an ATS and CRM with an assessment inside it. AssessAll is only the assessment and assumes you already have somewhere to put the result.
Candidates apply over WhatsApp, Facebook, SMS or TikTok and must stay inside that conversation.
Those channels are theirs. AssessAll delivers a link and expects something else to send it.
The integrity risk you are managing is a proxy sitter or a candidate reading a scripted answer.
They publish Voice ID and reading detection. AssessAll ships neither, and its own weight table cannot tell a read answer from a fluent one.
You need onboarding, document collection and contract workflow after the offer.
AssessAll stops at the score and has none of that.
How wide is the band you are about to reject people on?
Both vendors publish a band table, which is more than most of this category does. Neither publishes the measurement error around the score that produces the letter, and the letter is what a BPO hiring decision is usually made on. So compute the width of the band instead, from each vendor's own published numbers, and see how much room there is inside one letter.
Run this against whichever system you use, including AssessAll's. If a band is wide and the error is unpublished, a candidate near the top of a band and a candidate near the bottom get the same letter, and nobody can tell you whether they are actually different people on the queue.
If the only output you act on is the CEFR letter, both systems hand you a letter and neither hands you its error — and the one that is already inside your ATS costs you no second integration and no second per-candidate charge. On that requirement alone, the honest answer is to keep theirs. AssessAll is worth a separate line item only if you will actually use the subscale detail, the judgement items and the integrity band, and if you will ask us for the reliability figure we do not yet have.
The choice is not two tests — it is where the test lives
A Philippine BPO buying an English screen is rarely choosing between two instruments on their psychometric merits. It is choosing whether the screen sits inside the system that already carries the applicant, or beside it as a separate step with its own link, its own report and its own invoice.
Inside the funnel wins on completion and on recruiter time. A candidate who applied over Facebook Messenger and is asked to speak for five minutes in the same thread does not have to open anything, remember anything or be chased. Beside the funnel wins when the evidence has to outlive the system that collected it — when a client account asks what the bar was, when a new vendor takes over the pipeline, or when somebody wants to re-score last quarter's cohort against a different cut.
Neither answer is general. The question to settle before any demo is whether the screening result is an input to today's shortlist or a record you will be asked about in six months.
Both publish the band table. Neither publishes the error
It is worth saying plainly that Talkpush publishes more of its scoring scheme than most vendors in this category do, in a public help centre article, with the numeric CEFR ranges printed. That is the transparent half, and a buyer should say so.
The half that is missing is the same half that is missing from AssessAll: what the number's error is. A CEFR letter is produced by a hard cut on a continuous score. Without a reliability figure or a standard error of measurement there is no way to know whether a candidate one point below a boundary is meaningfully different from a candidate one point above it, and on a high-volume drive that boundary decides thousands of outcomes.
IELTS, which has more validation behind it than anything in this comparison, publishes the caution itself. Its own page on IELTS and the CEFR, read on 22 September 2026, says that there will not be a one-to-one correspondence between IELTS scores and CEFR levels, says of one band that it is not clear whether band 5 is B1 or B2, calls band 8 borderline, and recommends that recognising institutions look at the band score descriptors rather than rely on a conversion. A commercial screen mapping its own scale onto CEFR letters is doing, with far less evidence, something the most validated instrument in the field declines to do with its own.
The practical instruction that follows applies to every vendor on your shortlist, including this one: ask for the reliability coefficient and the standard error of measurement in writing, ask what population the norm is built from, and set subscale minimums rather than acting on the letter alone.
What a Philippine BPO is actually deciding
On a voice account the risk is a candidate who clears an overall English bar on the strength of vocabulary and grammar while the pronunciation subscale sits a level lower. That profile is the one a live queue exposes within a week, and it is invisible in a single overall number or a single letter. Whichever platform you use, publish a subscale minimum alongside the overall cut.
On a chat or back-office account the English bar is lower and typing, comprehension and judgement carry more of the decision, so an English-only screen — from either vendor — is measuring the wrong thing well.
And where a client contract names a recognised external benchmark, neither system in this comparison is the answer: that is a dedicated English instrument on a published scale, which is a different purchase and is covered on the Versant page in this same set.
A last piece of housekeeping that costs nothing. Whatever you buy, write down the bar before you see the scores, and re-cut it against who was still on the floor after nesting rather than against who passed the screen. A screen is only as good as the outcome it is checked against, and almost nobody checks.
Questions people ask
What are the alternatives to Talkpush for BPO hiring in the Philippines?
It depends on which half of Talkpush you are replacing. If you need the applicant tracking system and the messaging channels, the alternatives are other high-volume recruitment platforms, not an assessment vendor. If you already have an ATS and only need the measurement, a standalone screen such as AssessAll's — spoken English with four subscales, customer-interaction judgement and proctoring in one link at US$7.50–13 per candidate — covers that half and none of the funnel.
Does Talkpush publish pricing?
No. Checked on 22 September 2026, the Talkpush pricing page carries no figure in any currency — it offers four Get a quote calls to action and a Book a Demo link — and the TalkScore product page carries no price either. Quote-on-request is a normal enterprise model; it does mean you cannot compare cost per candidate until you are in a sales process.
What is TalkScore and what does it score?
TalkScore is Talkpush's English and soft-skills prescreening module. Per its public help centre, article updated 19 June 2026, it returns a single 0–5 overall score, five English dimensions each on 0–10 — fluency, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary and comprehension — a CEFR mapping from A0 to C2 with numeric ranges per level, and twelve named soft skills scored 0–5 against rubrics, in assessments of about five to ten minutes.
Is a TalkScore CEFR level the same as an AssessAll CEFR level?
No, and they should not be treated as interchangeable. The two systems map different underlying scales onto the same six letters, and neither publishes a reliability coefficient or a standard error of measurement for its scale. Compare candidates within one system's subscales rather than converting a letter between vendors.
Can AssessAll replace an applicant tracking system?
No. AssessAll has no applicant tracking system, no candidate sourcing and no messaging channels. It delivers a proctored assessment by share link or QR code with no candidate account and returns a ranked, integrity-banded result, which you carry into whatever hiring system you already run.
What CEFR level do Philippine call-centre agents need?
There is no sourced single standard. B2 is the level most often repeated, but a CEFR band is wide — AssessAll's own published B2 spans 53 to 66 on a 10–90 scale — so a candidate can sit at the bottom of B2 overall while a subscale such as pronunciation sits a level lower. Set an overall cut and subscale minimums for the specific queue rather than acting on the letter.
Every page this comparison was built from
Each of these was opened on . Nothing on this page is claimed about a product page that was not opened — where a row would have required one, the row says so instead of inferring it.
Described as an AI-powered applicant tracking system (ATS) and recruitment CRM built for high-volume hiring; modules listed include Applicant Tracking System, Attract, Conversational AI, Assessments (TalkScore), HR Comms, Onboarding, Recruitment Automation and Social Media Sourcing; channels named include WhatsApp, Facebook, SMS and TikTok; states it powers high-volume hiring in emerging markets. No customer count or candidate-volume figure on the page.
"Identify fluent English-speaking candidates with TalkScore, the first-ever English voice prescreening tool"; qualify leads within five minutes at the very front of the funnel; 57% decreased time to hire; +114% increase in volume of hires; +110% increase in recruiter productivity; double the completion rates on job applications; Concentrix case automated 100,000 annual hires and improved onboarding-team productivity by 52%; integration with third-party assessment tools described generically, no vendor named.
No price figure, no currency amount, no named tier with a number. Four Get a quote calls to action and a Book a Demo link; the page shows case studies and testimonials instead of rates.
Measures pronunciation, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, active listening and comprehension; "It ranks them on the CEFR scale and provides a detailed, shareable report of their skills"; candidates complete it on preferred communication channels and receive a response in seconds. No price on the page.
Article byline dated 19 June 2026. A single 0–5 overall score; five English dimensions each on a 0–10 scale (fluency, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, comprehension); CEFR levels A0 to C2 with numeric ranges, A1 given as 1.0–2.3 and C2 as 9.5–10.0; twelve named soft skills scored 0–5 with defined rubrics per level; assessment durations from about 5 minutes (English Proficiency Short) to about 10 minutes; results described as instant. No reliability coefficient, standard error of measurement, validation study or norm group anywhere in the article.
"Voice ID, video proctoring, and reading detection lock each session to the actual candidate"; retake rules described as fully configurable; a stated 40% drop in answers being read instead of given live. No publication date shown on the page.
"there will not be a one-to-one correspondence between IELTS scores and CEFR levels"; "it is not clear whether band 5 is B1 or B2"; band 8 described as borderline; recommends that recognising institutions look at the IELTS band score descriptors and use the IELTS Scores Guide rather than rely on a conversion.
Related
- BPO hiring in the Philippines
- Assessment platforms compared — Philippines
- Versant alternatives
- Pricing — the published unit price
Founder of AssessAll and of Bodhih Training Solutions, a corporate training company in Bangalore. Works on assessment design, scoring and reporting across hiring, L&D and certification programmes.
Last reviewed
AssessAll is not affiliated with Talkpush, and product and company names on this page belong to their respective owners. This comparison is published by a competing vendor: read it alongside the other vendor’s own materials, and check the linked pages rather than taking either side’s summary of them. Rows are re-verified monthly and deleted rather than left standing when they cannot be.