For Australian and New Zealand HR leads, SME owners, recruiters and RTOs

Six ways to buy a hiring screen in Australia or New Zealand, and what each one is actually good at.

Choosing an assessment platform in Australia or New Zealand is the decision of what evidence you will hold about an applicant, what it costs per person to hold it, and what your own privacy policy will have to say about it. Six options compete: Australian specialist providers, global enterprise vendors, AI-interview platforms, all-in-one HR suites, subscription test marketplaces, and pay-per-use measurement. They differ most on what they publish before a sales call.

See pay-as-you-go pricing +91 99000 11601

How do you choose a pre-employment assessment platform in Australia or New Zealand?

Compare five things, in this order: what each platform measures, whether it publishes a price, how many candidates that price covers, where the data is stored, and what your own privacy policy will have to say about the decision from 10 December 2026. Most Australian and New Zealand shortlists are decided on the last three.

At a glance

Assessment Platforms Compared: Australia & New Zealand: the facts, with their units

Who publishes a price	Two in six. Of six providers an Australian or New Zealand employer commonly shortlists, checked at their own pages on 9 September 2026: TestGorilla and Employment Hero publish figures. Criteria (which now owns the Australian brand Revelian), SHL, Sapia.ai and Vervoe publish none — every one routes a buyer to a quote, a demo or a pricing conversation. The Gulf came out at one in four and the Philippines at one in six, and the pattern under all three is the same: the providers who publish are the ones selling to small and mid-sized buyers. The ratio tracks who the buyer is, not the country.
The number almost nobody publishes: the denominator	A price is not a cost per candidate until you know how many candidates it buys. Employment Hero publishes both — its recruitment plans are quoted at 50, 100 and 200 AI video interviews, with the annual figure stated in the same place: A$2,388 a year for the 50-interview plan, all prices AUD ex. GST. That is A$47.76 per interview if you use all fifty and A$119.40 each if you use twenty. Ask every vendor for the denominator in writing; a plan without one cannot be compared with anything.
What AssessAll costs, publicly	1 credit = US$0.50. An Australian or New Zealand screening set runs 15–26 credits, or US$7.50–13 per candidate assessed, with volume pack discounts up to 13% (250 / 1,000 / 5,000 credits at US$125 / 465 / 2,175). No platform fee, no seat licence, no annual minimum, 250 free credits on organisation signup. Prices are quoted and charged in US dollars; your card provider converts to AUD or NZD at its prevailing rate, so budget an FX margin rather than a fixed local figure.
The arithmetic that can rule us out	TestGorilla's published Core plan is US$142 per month on annual commitment, billed US$1,704 a year. Divide that by an AssessAll screen and you get the volume at which the two cost the same: roughly 131 candidates a year at US$13 a screen, 227 at US$7.50. Above your crossover a published subscription is the cheaper shape — provided its plan covers that many candidates, which is exactly the denominator question above. Do the division with your own two numbers before assuming either model wins.
The date this market has not priced in	From 10 December 2026, an Australian APP entity whose privacy policy is silent about automated decisions will be out of step with the Privacy Act. The OAIC states the obligation plainly: from that date privacy policies must carry information about the kinds of personal information used in automated decision-making and the kinds of decisions made with it, where those decisions could reasonably be expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests. A hiring sift is the textbook example.
Who that obligation lands on	You, not your vendor. The disclosure sits in the employer's own privacy policy, so buying a platform does not discharge it — and you cannot write it without two sentences only the vendor can supply: what kinds of personal information the program uses, and what kinds of decisions it makes or substantially and directly contributes to. Ask for both in writing before you sign, not in November.
Where the data sits	AssessAll publishes no Australian or New Zealand data-residency option, and none is being claimed. That is not a legal bar in either country, but it is a question you have to answer rather than avoid: in New Zealand, IPP 12 of the Privacy Act 2020 provides that "an agency may disclose personal information to a foreign person or entity only if" one of six grounds applies, and in Australia APP 8 sets out, in the OAIC's words, "the steps an APP entity must take to protect personal information before it is disclosed overseas". If in-country hosting is a hard procurement requirement, this is the wrong platform for that requirement and you should establish it early rather than at security review.
A market-structure fact worth knowing	Australia's best-known homegrown assessment brand is no longer a separate product. Checked 9 September 2026: revelian.com returns a 302 redirect to criteriacorp.com. Criteria's plans-and-pricing page lists three products, each with a "Request Pricing" call to action, alongside a Brisbane postal address and an Australian phone number — so the local presence is real and the local price list is not published.
What AssessAll does not have here	No Australian or New Zealand norm group. No local accreditation, registration or endorsement of any kind, from any body. No in-region hosting. No Māori- or any non-English-language delivery. The adverse-impact monitor implements the United States four-fifths convention (29 CFR 1607.4(D)) over self-declared gender and a four-way age band with a minimum group size of five — it references no Australian or New Zealand test, and a passing ratio is not a defence under a statute that contains no ratio.
How to use this page	Not as a ranking. Every row names the case where that option is the right one, including the rows that are not ours, and every external fact carries the date it was read from the provider's own published page.

Half the shortlist cannot be compared until you are already in a sales process

Four of the six providers checked publish no figure at all. That makes a like-for-like table impossible before the demos, which is precisely when a shortlist is decided. The practical move is to convert every quote into one number — cost per applicant assessed, at the volume you will genuinely run this year — and to ask for it in writing at that volume, including applicants who start and never finish.

A plan price without a candidate allowance is not a price

Subscription and allowance-based plans fail in opposite directions from metered ones. A metered platform costs you nothing in a quiet quarter and everything in a hiring surge; an allowance plan costs the same either way, which is a bargain at full use and expensive at a third of it. Neither is better in the abstract. What settles it is one division you cannot do until the vendor tells you what the plan actually covers.

The compliance question in this market changed in December and the vendor pages have not

Australian buyers are being sold assessment platforms in 2026 by pages written against the pre-amendment Privacy Act. The automated-decision transparency obligation commencing 10 December 2026 does not create a new consent step or ban anything — it requires the employer to describe, in its own privacy policy, what the software decides and what information it uses. That is a procurement question with a deadline, and it is not being asked at the demo.

Australian and New Zealand SMEs are quoted enterprise shapes for eight-person problems

A bad hire in a 400-person company is a rounding error; in an eight-person business it is an eighth of the workforce. Yet most of the shortlist is packaged for the 400-person company — annual licences, per-seat pricing, procurement calls — which is why so many small employers here still hire on CV and gut feel. The question to ask is not which platform is best but which one is affordable at four hires a year.

A fairness dashboard is answering somebody else's regulator

Most adverse-impact monitoring on the market, this platform's included, implements the four-fifths rule — 29 CFR 1607.4(D), a United States EEOC Uniform Guidelines convention that flags a group whose selection rate falls below 80% of the highest group's. It is a useful prompt to investigate and it is not a compliance test in Australia or New Zealand. Ask any vendor whose dashboard you are shown which jurisdiction's test it implements, and confirm with local counsel what test actually applies to you.

What you get

Built for assessment platforms compared: australia & new zealand

Convert every quote to cost per applicant assessed

Take the annual figure, divide by the number of applicants you will genuinely assess this year — not the number you will hire — and compare that one number across vendors. A plan that looks cheap at 4,000 applicants is expensive at 300, and a per-candidate price that looks high is cheap when you hire twice a year. This single division reorders most shortlists.

Ask for the allowance, not just the plan

Where a plan is capped — a number of interviews, sittings or credits a month — ask what happens at the cap, whether unused allowance rolls over, and what the overage rate is. Under-use is the expensive failure mode of an allowance plan and nobody demonstrates it in a demo, because a demo is always run at full use.

Ask what fraction of applicants never finish

Completion rate decides your real cost per assessed candidate more than the list price does, especially on mobile and on a rural connection. Ask every vendor for their median completion rate on a phone, for an assessment of the length they are proposing — and whether an abandoned attempt is billed.

Ask what a proctoring flag actually does

AssessAll's answer, published: proctoring produces an integrity band from weighted signals with thresholds at 5 and 15 points, the module's own code calls those weights investigative rather than verdicts, and nothing is auto-rejected on a flag — a human reads the band with the evidence attached. Ask every other vendor for their equivalent numbers. A vendor who describes proctoring only with adjectives is asking you to trust an unfalsifiable claim.

Ask for the honest limit, and notice who volunteers one

Every platform on this page has a case it is wrong for; this page states four of ours in the row that sells us. A vendor who cannot name a scenario in which you should buy something else has either not thought about it or has decided not to tell you, and both are useful information at the shortlist stage.

Pilot on real applicants before the contract, not after

AssessAll gives a new organisation 250 free credits, which is enough to screen an entire applicant pool for one role before paying anything. Whatever platform you are considering, run one real requisition through it and read the reports as the hiring manager will read them. A pilot on live applicants surfaces in a fortnight what a reference call will not surface at all.

Before the first demo

The seven questions that decide an Australian or New Zealand shortlist, in the order to ask them

1
What is the price, and what is the denominator?
Two questions, always together. A monthly figure is not a cost per candidate until you know how many candidates it buys. Get both in writing at the volume you will actually run this year — not the volume in the proposal — and convert every quote to one number: cost per applicant assessed, including the applicants who start and never finish.
2
Is the bottleneck the funnel or the decision?
Write down how many applications arrive a month, and how many of the people you hired last year you would hire again. If the first number is the pain, you are buying automation. If the second is, you are buying measurement. Most teams have both problems and budget for one, so decide which one this purchase is for before anyone demos anything.
3
What two sentences will I need for my privacy policy on 10 December 2026?
Ask the vendor, in writing, for the kinds of personal information their program uses and the kinds of decisions it makes or substantially and directly contributes to. You need both to draft your own disclosure, the obligation is yours rather than theirs, and a vendor who cannot produce them in September will not produce them in November either. This one question separates the suppliers who have read the amendment from the ones who have not.
4
Where does the data sit, and on what basis does it leave?
Three parts, in writing: where attempt data is stored, where proctoring imagery is stored, and on what basis either leaves that location. In New Zealand that basis has to be one of the six grounds in IPP 12 and is usually contractual, which makes the data-processing terms part of the purchase rather than paperwork afterwards. In Australia it is APP 8. Retention for a score and retention for a photograph should be two separate answers.
5
Which jurisdiction's fairness test does the dashboard implement?
If a vendor shows you an adverse-impact screen, ask what rule it applies. Ours applies the United States four-fifths convention, which is a prompt to investigate rather than a compliance test here, and we say so on this page. A dashboard that reports a pass without naming the rule it passed is telling you less than it appears to.
6
What happens at the boundary, and does a human see it?
Ask what happens to a candidate who lands just below the cut: rejected automatically, or flagged for review. Ask the same about a proctoring flag — a flag that auto-rejects and a flag that lowers a confidence band are entirely different products with the same feature name. Whatever the answer, it tells you whether you are buying a filter or a decision aid, and it is the answer you will need when someone asks you to explain a rejection.
7
What happens the second time you measure?
If any part of the budget is for training, an RTO programme or internal development, the question is not what a report looks like but whether the same competencies can be re-scored months later and compared per person. Ask to see a before-and-after artefact for a real cohort. Screening-first platforms often have none, and that is a fair reason to buy two tools or to buy a different one.

Regulation & compliance

Two instruments that change what you buy, and what each one does to the assessment

Not a survey of Australian and New Zealand employment law — two instruments only, chosen because each one changes something concrete about how a hiring assessment is bought, configured or disclosed. Read at the regulator on 9 September 2026.

Statuses verified at primary sources on 9 September 2026.

SiddharthanFounder, AssessAll — Bodhih Training Solutions

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 9 September 2026

External facts in the comparison table were read from each provider's own published pages on 9 September 2026 and are re-verified monthly, all rows or none. The regulatory entries were read at the OAIC and the New Zealand Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the same date. Nothing here is legal advice, an endorsement, a ranking, or a claim about any provider's validity or suitability for your roles.

Australia

The change nearly every vendor page in this market is still written against.

Privacy Act 1988 — automated decision-making transparency (APP 1, as amended by the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024)

Passed; commences 10 December 2026

The OAIC states that from 10 December 2026 an APP entity's privacy policy must carry information about the kinds of personal information used in automated decision-making and the kinds of decisions made using it, where an automated decision could reasonably be expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests. The OAIC's own guidance describes the obligation as covering decisions made solely by a computer program and decisions substantially and directly related to a decision made by one, and it consulted on the scope of that guidance during 2026. The precise statutory wording is in the amending Act rather than on the guidance pages, so read it there before drafting.

What it means for a hiring assessment

A hiring sift is the textbook case, and the obligation lands on the employer's privacy policy rather than on the vendor's — so buying a platform does not discharge it. It also cannot be drafted from the outside: you need two sentences from the vendor, namely what kinds of personal information the program uses and what kinds of decisions it makes or substantially and directly contributes to. Add both to your procurement questions now. Note what the obligation is not: it does not create a new consent step, it does not ban automated sifting, and it does not require you to publish your cut score. It requires you to say what the software decides.

Source: OAIC — consultation on guidance for transparency in automated decision making

Privacy Act 1988 — APP 8, cross-border disclosure of personal information

In force

The OAIC's own quick reference describes APP 8 as setting out "the steps an APP entity must take to protect personal information before it is disclosed overseas".

What it means for a hiring assessment

Every assessment platform without Australian hosting puts candidate data, and any proctoring imagery, outside the country. That is lawful and ordinary, and it is a step you have to take rather than a box that is already ticked. Ask each vendor the question in three parts, in writing: where attempt data is stored, where proctoring imagery is stored, and on what basis either leaves that location. AssessAll publishes no Australian data-residency option.

Source: OAIC — Australian Privacy Principles quick reference

New Zealand

The instrument that decides whether an offshore assessment platform is available to you at all.

Privacy Act 2020 — Information Privacy Principle 12, disclosure outside New Zealand

In force

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner states the rule as: "An agency may disclose personal information to a foreign person or entity only if" one of six grounds is met. Those grounds include the individual authorising the disclosure after being expressly informed that the protections may be weaker, the recipient carrying on business in New Zealand and so being subject to the Act, the recipient being subject to privacy laws that overall provide comparable safeguards, participation in a prescribed binding scheme, the recipient being in a prescribed country, and the agency otherwise reasonably believing comparable protections apply — in practice, by contract.

What it means for a hiring assessment

IPP 12 does not stop a New Zealand employer using an offshore platform, but it does mean the ground is chosen rather than assumed, and consent is the weakest of the six in a hiring context because an applicant's authorisation is given to the organisation deciding whether to employ them. The workable ground for most employers is contractual comparable protections, which means the data-processing terms are part of the purchase decision and not an afterthought. AssessAll publishes no New Zealand data-residency option.

Source: Office of the Privacy Commissioner — IPP 12

AssessAll holds no Australian or New Zealand accreditation, certification, registration or regulatory approval of any kind, and publishes no Australian or New Zealand data-residency option. This page is a procurement aid, not legal advice, and it covers two instruments rather than the field. Every entry was read at the named regulator on 9 September 2026 and is re-verified quarterly; an entry that cannot be re-verified is deleted rather than left to go stale. Take Australian or New Zealand employment and privacy advice on your own facts before relying on anything here.

Compare the approaches

The six options, and when each one is the right answer

Approach-level rows with named examples. Every external fact below was read from that provider's own published page on 9 September 2026, and a price is stated only where the provider publishes one. This is a comparison, not a ranking: the 'when to choose this instead' line is the point of each row.

External facts verified at source on 9 September 2026.

Approach	What it measures	What it costs	When to choose it instead
An Australian specialist assessment provider, now offshore-owned (for example Criteria, which acquired Revelian)	Cognitive aptitude, personality and risk instruments with a long Australian deployment history, sold as three products — Criteria Assess, Criteria Interview and Criteria Hire. A provider that has been used by Australian employers for years is holding local deployment experience a newer platform cannot manufacture, and it answers an Australian phone number.	Not published. Checked 9 September 2026: all three products carry a "Request Pricing" call to action and no figure. The page lists a Brisbane postal address and an Australian phone number, so the local presence is genuine even though the price list is not public. Separately, revelian.com returns a 302 redirect to criteriacorp.com.	Choose it when you want an instrument with a substantial Australian usage history and a local account team you can call in your own time zone, when a psychologist-supported interpretation service is part of what you are buying, or when your board wants a supplier that has been in this market for a long time. Ask for the price at your annual volume in writing at the first call, because you cannot get it any other way.
Global enterprise assessment vendors (for example SHL)	Large validated instrument libraries with published norm data, simulations, assessor services and enterprise integrations. Decades of accumulated validity evidence is the thing a buyer is paying for, and it is the thing you want to be holding if a selection decision is challenged.	Not published. Checked 9 September 2026: the product catalogue asks a buyer to "Speak With Our Team" or "Book a Demo", with no figures anywhere on the page and no Australian or New Zealand pricing view.	Choose it when you need norm data and validity evidence for a job family genuinely like yours and someone on your side will read the technical manual; when an assessment centre or a simulation is part of the design; or when procurement wants one master agreement across several countries. If the decision is going to be defended in a tribunal, published norms are the asset.
AI-interview and volume-hiring platforms (for example Sapia.ai, Vervoe)	A structured interview or work-sample at scale, scored automatically, usually with candidate-experience and funnel tooling around it. Vervoe's page describes "custom plans based on your volume and workflow"; Sapia.ai's pricing page offers a personalised pricing guide in a session and describes itself as suited to employers hiring at several hundred people a year and above. Those are the providers' own published descriptions, not ours.	Not published by either. Checked 9 September 2026: Vervoe's pricing page carries "Request pricing" and "Book a Demo" and no figures; Sapia.ai's carries no figures and routes to a pricing conversation. Every third-party figure circulating for either comes from procurement aggregators rather than from the vendor, so cite none of them.	Choose them when the volume is genuinely large and the bottleneck is getting a consistent, scored conversation with thousands of applicants rather than measuring a specific ability. At that scale the automation is worth more than any single instrument on this page. Ask separately what the scoring layer inside it measures and how the cut was set, because that is a different question from how many applicants it can move.
An all-in-one Australian HR and payroll platform with hiring built in (for example Employment Hero)	The employment lifecycle rather than an ability: applicant tracking, AI video interviews, candidate scoring, onboarding, payroll, rostering and HR advisory in one subscription. For a small Australian or New Zealand employer this is often the shape that actually gets bought, because the hiring module arrives attached to the thing they already needed.	Published, and unusually specific. Checked 9 September 2026: recruitment plans at A$199, A$359 and A$639 per month for 50, 100 and 200 AI video interviews respectively; the 50-interview plan is stated as A$2,388 per annum on annual billing, or A$249 per month billed monthly. HR plans start at A$10 per user per month with a ten-user minimum. All prices AUD, excluding GST, as stated on the page.	Choose it when you need HR, payroll and hiring in one system more than you need a measurement instrument, when the team is small enough that a second vendor is a real overhead, and when your hiring volume sits comfortably inside a published interview allowance. It is the honest answer for a large share of Australian and New Zealand SMEs, and the arithmetic is public enough that you can check it in five minutes.
Subscription skills-test marketplaces (for example TestGorilla)	A broad library of short role and skill tests assembled into a screen, with the cost carried by a plan rather than by the candidate.	Published. Checked 9 September 2026: a Free plan at US$0 a month with 10 credits a month; Core at US$142 per month on annual commitment, billed US$1,704 annually; Plus from US$400 per month, annual commitment from US$4,800; Enterprise on request. Figures are in US dollars.	Choose a subscription when hiring runs at a steady volume all year, because a plan amortises and pay-per-use does not. Against an AssessAll screen the published Core plan becomes the cheaper shape somewhere between roughly 131 and 227 candidates a year, depending on which screen you run — so if you assess more than that, this row is the better buy and this page says so. Confirm the plan's candidate allowance in writing first.
Pay-per-use measurement with a re-measure loop (AssessAll)	One sitting on a share link or QR code, with no candidate account: aptitude and interactive item catalogues, workplace-judgement scenarios, AI-composed items graded against your own competency framework, and English reported as four subscales rather than one letter. Proctoring, when switched on for that assessment, carries an identity-baseline photo and an integrity band a human reads. For training providers and RTOs, the same cohort can be baselined, developed and re-scored so a gain is a measured delta rather than a feedback form.	Published: 1 credit = US$0.50, an Australian or New Zealand screening set 15–26 credits (US$7.50–13) per candidate assessed, volume pack discounts up to 13%, 250 free credits, no seats and no annual minimum. Billed in US dollars.	It is the wrong choice when in-country data residency is a procurement requirement, because none is published for Australia or New Zealand. It is the wrong choice when you need an Australian or New Zealand norm group, because none exists. It is the wrong choice when you are assessing well above roughly 131–227 candidates a year and a published subscription plan covers that volume. And it is the wrong choice when the bottleneck is sourcing rather than selection, or when you need payroll and HR in the same system.

Prices and published-pricing statements were read from each provider's own pages on 9 September 2026 and are re-verified monthly, all rows or none — a partial re-check that moved this date would be a freshness claim we had not earned. Claims attributed to a provider are that provider's own published claims and are not independently verified here. Currency is as each provider states it: Employment Hero publishes in Australian dollars excluding GST, TestGorilla and AssessAll in US dollars. Nothing on this page is a judgement about the quality, validity or suitability of any provider for your roles. AssessAll holds no accreditation of any kind, in Australia, New Zealand or anywhere else.

Sources: Criteria — plans and pricing · SHL product catalogue · Sapia.ai pricing · Vervoe pricing · Employment Hero pricing · TestGorilla pricing

Common use cases

Comparing assessment platforms for an Australian or New Zealand SME hiring round
Building a procurement question list before the first vendor demo
Preparing an automated-decision disclosure for a privacy policy before 10 December 2026
Answering a client or board question about where candidate data is stored
Choosing between an allowance plan and metered per-candidate pricing
Setting up baseline-and-outcome measurement for an RTO or training programme

Pricing for australia & nz platform comparison

AssessAll is metered: 1 credit = US$0.50, an Australian or New Zealand screening set 15–26 credits (US$7.50–13) per candidate assessed, volume packs discounting up to 13%, and 250 free credits on organisation signup. There is no platform fee, no seat licence and no annual minimum. Billing is in US dollars, so budget an FX margin rather than a fixed AUD or NZD figure.

See full pricing solutions@bodhih.com

Frequently asked questions

Which assessment platforms publish their prices in Australia and New Zealand?+

Two of six, checked at each provider's own page on 9 September 2026. TestGorilla publishes plan prices in US dollars (Free at US$0, Core at US$142 a month on annual commitment or US$1,704 a year, Plus from US$400 a month or US$4,800 a year, Enterprise on request). Employment Hero publishes Australian-dollar figures excluding GST, including recruitment plans at A$199, A$359 and A$639 a month for 50, 100 and 200 AI video interviews. Criteria, SHL, Sapia.ai and Vervoe publish no figures and route a buyer to a quote or a demo. AssessAll publishes a per-credit price of US$0.50. Quote-on-request is a normal enterprise model, not a criticism — but it does mean half the shortlist cannot be compared until you are already in a sales process.

What changes for Australian employers on 10 December 2026?+

The transparency obligation for automated decision-making in the Privacy Act commences. From that date an APP entity's privacy policy must carry information about the kinds of personal information used in automated decision-making and the kinds of decisions made with it, where a decision could reasonably be expected to significantly affect an individual's rights or interests. An automated hiring sift is the textbook example. It does not ban automated assessment, does not add a consent step, and does not require you to publish your cut score — it requires you to describe, in your own privacy policy, what the software decides and what information it uses.

Does my assessment vendor handle the December 2026 privacy policy change for me?+

No. The disclosure sits in the employer's own privacy policy, so the obligation is yours. But you cannot draft it alone: you need two things only the vendor knows — what kinds of personal information their program uses, and what kinds of decisions it makes or substantially and directly contributes to. Ask for both in writing during procurement. A vendor who cannot answer in September will not be easier to reach in December, and the answer is a reasonable thing to expect before you sign.

Is it legal for a New Zealand employer to use an assessment platform hosted overseas?+

Yes, subject to IPP 12 of the Privacy Act 2020, which provides that an agency may disclose personal information to a foreign person or entity only if one of six grounds is met — including that the recipient is subject to privacy laws providing comparable safeguards overall, or that the agency otherwise reasonably believes comparable protections apply, which in practice means by contract. Consent is one of the six but is the weakest ground in a hiring context, because the applicant is authorising the organisation deciding whether to employ them. The practical consequence is that the data-processing terms are part of the purchase decision. AssessAll publishes no New Zealand data-residency option.

Does the four-fifths rule apply to hiring in Australia or New Zealand?+

The four-fifths rule is 29 CFR 1607.4(D), a United States EEOC Uniform Guidelines convention: it flags a group whose selection rate falls below 80% of the highest group's rate. It is a useful prompt to investigate a screen and it is not an Australian or New Zealand compliance test. AssessAll's own adverse-impact monitor implements that American convention over self-declared gender and a four-way age band, excluding groups below five people from flagging, and it references no local test. Ask any vendor whose fairness dashboard you are shown which rule it applies, and take local advice on which test actually applies to you.

Is Revelian still a separate assessment platform?+

Checked 9 September 2026: revelian.com returns a 302 redirect to criteriacorp.com, and Criteria's plans-and-pricing page lists three products — Criteria Assess, Criteria Interview and Criteria Hire — each with a "Request Pricing" call to action, alongside a Brisbane postal address and an Australian phone number. So the Australian presence is real and the pricing is not published. If you are working from a shortlist assembled a few years ago, check which brands on it still exist as separate products before you spend a call on each.

What does an assessment cost per candidate in Australia or New Zealand?+

On AssessAll it is metered: 1 credit is US$0.50, a screening set runs 15–26 credits, so US$7.50–13 per candidate assessed, with volume packs (250 / 1,000 / 5,000 credits at US$125 / 465 / 2,175) discounting up to 13%. There is no platform fee, no seat licence and no annual minimum, and a new organisation gets 250 free credits. Billing is in US dollars and your card provider converts to AUD or NZD, so budget an FX margin. Elsewhere on the shortlist the figure is a plan rather than a unit price, and only two of the six providers checked publish one at all.

When is a subscription cheaper than paying per candidate?+

Above your crossover, and the crossover is one division. Take the published annual plan figure and divide it by your per-candidate price. TestGorilla's Core plan at US$1,704 a year against an AssessAll screen at US$13 is about 131 candidates a year; against a US$7.50 screen it is about 227. Assess more than that and the plan is the cheaper shape, so buy the plan. Assess fewer, and metered wins because you pay nothing in a quiet quarter. Confirm the plan's candidate allowance in writing first, because a plan price without a denominator cannot be divided.

What should an Australian or New Zealand small business actually buy?+

It depends on one thing more than any other: whether you need a measurement instrument or an employment system. If hiring is occasional and the problem is that you cannot tell two shortlisted applicants apart, buy metered measurement and pay per candidate. If you also need payroll, onboarding and HR in one place, an all-in-one platform with hiring built in is usually the better purchase even if the assessment inside it is lighter, because a second vendor is a real overhead for a small team. If you hire continuously all year, run the crossover division and buy the plan.

What is AssessAll not the right choice for in this market?+

Four things, stated plainly. If in-country data residency is a hard procurement requirement, none is published for Australia or New Zealand. If you need a local norm group, none exists. If you assess well above roughly 131–227 candidates a year and a published subscription covers that volume, the subscription is cheaper. And if what you actually need is payroll and HR in the same system, or the bottleneck is sourcing rather than selection, this is the wrong category of purchase. AssessAll also holds no Australian or New Zealand accreditation, registration or endorsement of any kind.