You've shortlisted three or four candidates. Their résumés say similar things. You have 30-60 minutes to decide who to advance, and the cost of a bad hire is six to eighteen months of misfit. This outcome compares your candidates' Profiles against the role's calibrated demand profile — not by buzzwords, but by dimensional fit, with confidence intervals on every comparison and the limits the data cannot speak to named explicitly.
Each candidate's Profile is matched against the role's calibrated demand. You get a fit score per candidate with 80% confidence intervals, the dimensional breakdown that drove each score, and a recommendation that names what the comparison cannot speak to. Below is what an actual result looks like for a senior SOC analyst hire — three candidates compared, real values, real CIs.
The 30-60 minutes is split across four steps. You can pause and resume between any of them — your work is signed and saved. Each step's investment is named so you can plan around your day.
Pick from calibrated role templates (senior SOC analyst, junior associate, etc.) or define your own demand on six dimensions. v1 templates are practitioner-consensus calibrated — built with ~10 senior and ~10 mid-level practitioners per role establishing the dimensional weights. Outcome-validated templates accumulate as v1 cohort data builds.
Send each candidate a Profile-share request — they control what they share with you, not the other way around. Most candidates have an existing Profile from prior diagnostics; if not, they take a 15-minute baseline.
Each candidate's Profile is matched against the demand profile. You see a ranked fit list with CIs, dimensional breakdown, and an automated recommendation that names the limits.
You decide. The comparison and your decision are timestamped and signed — useful if a candidate later challenges the hiring decision, or for SOC 2 / EEOC documentation. The artifact is yours; we cannot delete it.
Profile-based comparison only works if both sides are measured well, and if the strength of each claim is named honestly. QLM publishes per-claim validation status across the product line — every assertion below is tagged validated, calibrated, in progress, or model-dependent. current releasees with the comparison infrastructure validated and the role-template demand profiles calibrated against practitioner consensus. The hiring-outcome correlation that matters most to you is in progress — it accumulates from the v1 cohort over 12-18 months.
The fairness audit on every comparison, the cryptographic signing of every result, the confidence-interval methodology, the audit-trail retention. Infrastructure-grade validation; the comparison runs the same fairness audit as every other QLM measurement.
v1 templates calibrated against practitioner-consensus cohorts (~10 senior + ~10 mid-level practitioners per role). Calibrated, not yet validated against actual hiring outcomes. The dimensional weights are defensible against practitioner consensus; outcome-validation accumulates over 12-18 months.
The empirical claim — that top-ranked Profile fit correlates with retention and performance outcomes — requires multi-year cohort data. The current release includes the comparison infrastructure; v2 ships measured correlation values with confidence intervals. customers participating in cohort validation get early access to v2 features as they validate.
A 30-60 minute Profile-based comparison answers a specific question well. It does not answer adjacent questions that look similar but require different evidence. Five things this comparison cannot speak to, each with the heavier outcome that would.
Individual managers get five candidate-compare runs per month at no cost. Past five, and for team-wide deployment, the pricing is below. Your Profile and your candidates' Profiles are theirs and yours, never ours — pricing is for engine usage, not for data access.
Up to 5 candidate-compare runs per month, each with up to 5 candidates compared. Audit trails, methodology access, and Profile-share requests included. No credit card required, no time limit on the free tier.
Unlimited candidate-compare runs across up to 50 hiring managers. Includes integration with your ATS, custom role-demand profile calibration with research-team review, and SOC 2 / EEOC-aligned compliance documentation. Profiles re-calibrated against your team's accumulated outcome data as data accrues — typically meaningful refinement after 12-18 months.
Org-wide deployment with custom validation, ATS integration, and dedicated implementation. Includes the workforce-monitoring outcome and skills-based-hiring suite. OEM/embed pricing available with 70/30 revenue share.
Thirty to sixty minutes returns a calibrated comparison with confidence intervals, dimensional breakdown, and the limits the data cannot speak to. Free for the first five comparisons each month.