Proof, for the people you will never meet.

By measuring them under controlled conditions instead of trusting a document. Every candidate takes the same assessment set through one link: working English, role-relevant ability, and workplace judgement, with an identity-baseline photo captured at the start and face-presence, additional-face, tab-switch and screenshot monitoring throughout. You receive scores, section detail, an integrity band and the proctoring evidence itself — so the decision rests on what the person did, not on what their CV claims.

No, and it is important not to confuse the two. AssessAll verifies demonstrated capability under proctored conditions — English, skills, judgement, and the integrity of the session. It does not verify legal identity documents, employment history, education records or criminal history. Use a background-screening provider for those; use this for whether the person can actually do the work.

The employer or the talent platform pays, per candidate assessed, in US dollars: a verification assessment set is 20-40 credits, i.e. US$10-20 per candidate at US$0.50 per credit, with pack discounts up to 13%. The candidate pays nothing and needs no card — which is the point, because candidate-paid screening does not work in the markets this is built for. New organisations get 250 free credits to verify a first shortlist before spending anything.

That is exactly why written take-home exercises have stopped being useful. Verification sessions are proctored and timed, spoken tasks are scored by AI speech engines from the candidate's own recorded voice, and situational judgement runs under time pressure. Tab switches, screen captures, face absence and additional faces are all recorded and reflected in the integrity band, and the evidence is attached to the attempt for you to review before making an offer.

Anywhere with a phone and a usable connection. It is built for the offshore hiring corridors in particular — candidates in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, the Philippines and India being hired by employers in the US, UK, EU and Australia — because delivery needs no candidate account, no card, and no desktop, and the player is resumable when a connection drops.

One report per candidate: overall and per-section scores, an integrity band with the proctoring evidence, an AI-written summary of strengths and risks, and a ranked position against everyone else in the same drive. Reports can be forwarded to a hiring manager or an end client, and platforms can present them under their own branding.

Yes — that is the volume configuration. Platforms get white-label branding, client workspaces, wholesale credit pricing, and bulk delivery through links, QR drives or roster imports, so every listed candidate carries verified evidence rather than a self-reported profile. Get in touch through the partners page to scope it.

Yes. Results can become Skill Passport credentials with public verification links, so a candidate who has been verified once arrives at the next employer with evidence instead of a claim. That is deliberate: it makes candidates willing participants rather than people being tested at, and it compounds the value of every assessment you pay for.

Partly, and it is worth being exact about which part. AssessAll is not a coding-test platform — its general question validator refuses to store a coding question and there is no coding-problem library; only two store work samples (SQL query writing and data cleaning) run a candidate's statements or programs against hidden data. What it verifies for an engineering hire is the language-agnostic layer: tracing pseudo-code, reading a spec or an API changelog without inventing the missing half, process and deductive logic, data and digital fundamentals, workplace judgement, and written and spoken English, all under proctoring. Most teams hiring engineers across a border run both — a code-test platform for finalists, this across everyone. There is a full page on that decision, including the arithmetic for when a code-test subscription is the cheaper instrument.

Three things, stated so you do not have to find them. It has no coding-test library, so it is not a substitute for a coding platform. It publishes no validity study, no norm group and no benchmark for any instrument — the platform has not reached the sample size its own internal evidence gate requires — so if your process needs published local validity evidence, this is not it. And it does not verify identity documents, employment history or criminal records; that is a background-screening provider's job, not this one's.