BioRecruit evaluates every candidate the way your own founders would — pedigree and papers aside, weighted toward the agency and execution that actually predicts a good hire at this stage.
A formal score for credentials and a separate agency score for initiative and execution — blended by weights you set, not a fixed formula that treats every hire the same.
Nine weighted dimensions — technical depth, agency, execution, coachability, culture fit, and more — tuned per role, with a live preview of exactly what the model will weigh before you save.
Every score lands in a review queue. Accept, reject, or override — and every override is logged, so you can see exactly where the model and your judgment disagreed, and why.
Most hiring tools either ignore initiative entirely or fold it into a vague "culture fit" score. BioRecruit treats it as its own measurable channel — built on specific, evidenced instances pulled from what a candidate actually did, not adjectives they used to describe themselves.
The model looks for concrete instances — built something without being asked, pushed through a blocker with no clear owner, made a real call under ambiguity — and discards generic self-description with nothing behind it.
Agency and execution are scored independently from formal credentials — score_agency vs score_formal — then blended by weights you set, so a pedigree-heavy resume with zero evidenced initiative can't coast on credentials alone.
Strong evidenced agency with weak formal credentials is floored at a respectable score rather than getting buried by the blend. Weak on both channels caps low, no matter how polished the resume reads.
A real application page per open role, with role-specific questions you define — not a generic form.
Referrals, cold finds, and LinkedIn sourcing go through the exact same scoring pipeline as anyone who applied directly.
New → scored → review → shortlisted → interviewing → hired — drag a card, the pipeline updates.
Built for 500+ person talent teams, priced at $50k+/year — and increasingly the subject of lawsuits over exactly what BioRecruit does differently: black-box match scores with no visible reasoning, trained on past-hire data that quietly bakes in whoever a company already hired. A 2026 class action against Eightfold centers on undisclosed scoring; a Workday case (Mobley v. Workday) turns on the same opacity.
Genuinely good structured-hiring tools — but the "AI match" layer, where it exists, scores against a generic job description. It doesn't know your company's actual technical bar, your founders' own standards, or what "agency" looks like on your specific team. You still make that judgment call yourself, for every candidate.
Cheap and accessible, which matters — but the "AI" is light keyword/resume matching, not a scoring model taught how your company actually thinks. Fine for a first filter. Not built to replace your own read of a candidate.
BioRecruit's difference isn't a bigger model — it's that the scoring model is built on your company's context, every weight is a slider you set and can see before you save, and every AI call is logged next to the human decision that followed it — so if the model and your judgment ever disagree, you can see exactly where and why, instead of trusting a black box.
We're working hands-on with a small number of teams right now — tell us about yours.