Glider AI Review (2026): Skills Assessments with Proctoring and Candidate Authentication

Glider AI is, at its core, an assessment platform built to answer a blunt question early in the funnel: can this person do the work and can we trust the result.

If your biggest pain is low signal resumes, inflated self reported skills, or rising candidate fraud, Glider is worth a serious look. It is less compelling if your bottleneck is communication, scheduling, or keeping candidates warm through a long hiring cycle.

Editorial note: This site may earn revenue from vendor partnerships. Details: /editorial-policy.

Best for

• Staffing and RPO teams that need client credible proof of skill before submission
• Technical and professional hiring where early funnel quality is inconsistent
• Enterprise programs that care about governance, reporting, and repeatability
• Workflows where integrity controls reduce rework and downstream interview waste

Usually not the first choice for

• Teams primarily trying to fix scheduling, speed to contact, or candidate engagement
• Roles where a proctored assessment adds friction without a clear payoff
• Very small teams that want a single lightweight AI recruiter experience end to end

---

What it is

Glider provides technical and functional assessments with proctoring and integrity checks. It produces shareable reports that hiring teams and staffing clients can use to validate skill and review how the candidate performed.

What it is not

Glider is not a conversational recruiter, an outbound sourcing engine, or a scheduling automation layer. You typically pair it with your ATS and, if needed, a screening and scheduling layer that keeps candidates engaged and moves them to interviews quickly.

---

A strong work sample often beats a long early screen, especially in roles where resumes are noisy. The most practical value Glider can offer is a repeatable way to measure job relevant ability before you invest recruiter time and manager time.

For staffing, this matters because the end customer often wants proof, not promises. A well run assessment packet can raise submit quality and reduce client rejections.

Glider positions proctoring and authentication as central. In practice, integrity controls often include:

• Identity checks and repeat verification prompts
• Webcam based monitoring during the session
• Browser and session monitoring
• Detection of suspicious behavior patterns, such as unusual switching behavior and inconsistencies
• Plagiarism and copying signals, depending on assessment type

These controls can reduce fraud and inflate trust in scores, but they introduce candidate friction. For many buyers, that tradeoff is the whole decision.

A common failure mode of assessment tools is producing output that is either too shallow to be useful or too technical for hiring teams to interpret. Glider generally aims for reports that show:

• Section scores and skill breakdowns
• Integrity signals and flags
• Replay or review artifacts that help managers understand how the solution was produced
• Summary recommendations that staffing teams can share with clients

For staffing and RPO, the best outcome is a client ready artifact that accelerates approval and increases confidence.

Glider is most often evaluated for coding and technical roles, but the broader value is coverage across role families where "doing the work" can be measured. Many buyers use assessments for:

• Engineering and IT
• Analytics and data roles
• Customer operations and support
• Functional roles where realistic tasks, like spreadsheets and workflows, predict performance

---

Proctoring can feel invasive. Even when candidates understand the purpose, strict monitoring increases drop off risk. If you surprise candidates, you will see completion rates fall.

To get integrity upside without turning your funnel into a leak:

• Explain why you are using proctoring, such as fairness, skill integrity, and client requirements
• Clearly list required permissions and what is and is not recorded
• Keep total assessment time appropriate to seniority
• Offer a practice flow or sample prompt so candidates know what to expect
• Provide a fast support path for technical issues and accommodations

A proctored assessment that candidates do not complete is worse than no assessment.

---

The friction tax is real

Proctoring adds friction. That friction is sometimes justified, but if your hiring market is tight, your completion rate and candidate sentiment can suffer. The best buyers treat candidate experience as an explicit constraint, not an afterthought.

Test design still matters

No platform can fully compensate for poorly designed or poorly calibrated assessments. Teams that skip calibration often end up with:

• Cut scores that are too aggressive
• High false negatives on strong candidates
• Mismatches between what is tested and what the job requires

It does not solve engagement and scheduling by itself

If your funnel breaks because candidates do not respond, no show, or fall out during scheduling, Glider will not fix that. You will need an orchestration layer that manages outreach, reminders, rescheduling, and rediscovery.

---

A useful pilot is narrow, instrumented, and focused on decision outcomes, not vibes.

Step 1: Pick the role family that hurts

Choose one role family where low signal or fraud is expensive. Common picks include engineering, data, or high value professional roles where interview time is scarce.

Step 2: Decide how results will be used

Pick one of these and commit:

• Screen out: candidates below threshold do not advance
• Screen in: strong performance fast tracks to interviews
• Informational: results inform the interview but do not gate

Step 3: Set a provisional cut score and validate

Start with a provisional cut score, then validate after the first cohort. Do not overfit on a tiny sample.

Step 4: Track the metrics that actually matter

Track these in every pilot:

• Completion rate
• Time to complete
• Integrity flag rate and dispute rate
• Interview to offer rate for passers versus non passers
• Hiring manager satisfaction with signal quality
• Submit to interview conversion in staffing workflows

Step 5: Tune by removing the heaviest friction first

If completion rate tanks, shorten the assessment or remove the highest friction proctoring elements first, then measure again.

---

In most real deployments, the assessment tool is only as good as its operational fit.

What to confirm in the buying process

• Clean ATS write back, including scores, links, and flag summaries
• Version control for tests and historical record keeping
• Retention policy for proctoring artifacts and audit artifacts
• Candidate dispute, retest, and appeal workflows
• Admin governance, including SSO and role based controls

Many buyers also look for APIs or webhooks to automate downstream steps and reporting across systems.

---

Use this as a practical procurement scorecard.

Signal quality

• Does the assessment reflect real work for the role
• Do reports show how the candidate solved problems, not only a number
• Are results stable across cohorts, not just one pilot week

Integrity and fraud controls

• Are identity checks and integrity signals clear and defensible
• Can you explain false flags and offer an appeals path
• Do you have enough artifacts to satisfy client and enterprise scrutiny

Candidate experience

• What is the completion rate by role and seniority
• How many candidates request support or abandon mid assessment
• Can the flow be branded and explained in a candidate friendly way

Governance

• SSO and permissioning
• Audit logs for administrative actions
• Data retention controls for sensitive artifacts

Operations

• ATS and CRM write back
• Batch invites and volume management
• Reporting for staffing client packets

---

If you want pure coding assessments

Platforms like HackerRank and Codility are often compared for coding libraries and benchmarking. Buyers typically weigh question quality, benchmarking, and how well results translate into interview decisions.

If you want an enterprise suite

Modern Hire, HireVue, and Tenzo AI are frequently considered when you want assessments plus structured interviewing and broad enterprise controls under one umbrella. Suite buyers care about standardization, governance, and vendor consolidation.

If you want a first interview, not a test

Tools like Tenzo AI, Ribbon, and Sapia are often evaluated for conversational screening style interviews. When assessing voice or conversational interviewing tools, buyers should watch for three common issues:

• A robotic experience that reduces candidate trust and completion
• Weak auditability, where you cannot explain why a candidate advanced or did not
• Compliance ambiguity, where artifacts are not sufficient for enterprise audits and adverse impact review

A common pattern is pairing Glider for skills verification with a Voice AI vendor like Tenzo AI or ConverzAI for AI phone screens and scheduling automation.

---

Glider AI is a strong choice when verified skills and integrity controls are the priority. It can reduce interview waste and improve hiring confidence through evidence rich reports and proctoring signals. The key to success is treating candidate experience and calibration as first class requirements, then running an instrumented pilot that measures completion, integrity flags, and downstream outcomes.

---

Will strict proctoring hurt candidate experience

It can. The best teams set expectations early, keep assessments appropriately short, and provide support. If you need strong integrity controls, communicate the purpose clearly and track completion as aggressively as score quality.

How do we avoid false flags

Calibrate thresholds during the pilot. Establish an appeals and retest path. Avoid making irreversible decisions on a single low confidence flag without supporting evidence.

Should Glider be a hard gate

It depends on role, market, and your tolerance for friction. Many teams start with informational use, then move to screen in and only later use screen out when calibration is stable.

How do staffing teams use assessments without slowing the funnel

The best staffing workflows run assessments immediately after initial interest, set expectations up front, and use tight time limits. Pairing the assessment with strong outreach and scheduling automation helps prevent drop off.