Sapia.ai Reviews & Product Details

Thank you for taking the time to share this feedback. These are important concerns, and I want to respond to what you've raised.

On dyslexia and accessibility:

Our platform is specifically designed to support neurodiverse candidates. The chat interview has no time limits, uses free-text responses rather than multiple choice, and is compatible with screen readers and speech-to-text. We've interviewed over 6,000 neurodiverse candidates, and those with dyslexia rate their experience an average of 8.8 out of 10.

Unlike traditional assessments that only provide accommodations after disclosure, these features are built in from the start. Every candidate gets the same accessible experience.

If there's been a situation where this didn't work as intended, we'd genuinely like to investigate what happened.

On AI detection:

Our system may prompt during interviews if AI usage is detected, but this is guidance, not penalisation. Our philosophy is that what matters most is whether someone can demonstrate the required competencies. Detailed, thoughtful answers are exactly what we're looking for.

The platform measures actual capability and experience, which comes through regardless of how answers are prepared or polished.

On the impact on jobs:

Sapia.ai is designed to augment human decision-making, not replace it. Over a million candidates have used our platform, with 9 out of 10 rating it positively because it gives people a chance to be seen beyond their CV. Our goal is to make hiring more human by removing bias and revealing talent that traditional methods miss.

We take all feedback seriously. We'd like to discuss your specific experience further, please reach out to us directly at hello@sapia.ai

Thank you so much for this. It's brilliant to hear that the scoring is translating so clearly into candidate quality for your team, and that the SmartRecruiters integration went smoothly alongside your ATS launch.

Your feedback on reporting is really valuable. Ideally you'd have all that hire data flowing back without the manual work, and we're actively working on deepening our ATS integrations to make that easier. I've shared this with our product team as it's exactly the kind of insight that helps us prioritise what to build next.

Thanks again for taking the time to share such detailed feedback. It genuinely helps.

Thank you so much for this. It's wonderful to hear how much value you're getting from the risk identification, the scoring, and the personal snapshot feature. That's exactly what we want to see: giving recruitment teams the insights they need to make confident decisions quickly.

The points you've raised about scoring alignment and AI detection for recent graduates are really helpful. We know that candidates fresh out of education can have a more formal writing style, and that shouldn't work against them. Your feedback helps our People Science team understand where we can refine detection and make sure we're not unfairly flagging genuine responses.

If you come across specific examples where scoring doesn't feel right for a candidate, please do share them with your Customer Success contact. Real examples are gold for us when it comes to improving model accuracy for your campaigns.

Thanks so much for taking the time to share this feedback. It's really helpful to hear exactly how JAS is working for you, especially around competency-based assessment and handling high volumes. That's the problem we built it to solve, so it's great to know it's delivering.

We hear you on the spreadsheet juggle. We're always listening to how people are actually using the platform day-to-day, and that kind of feedback helps us think about where we evolve next.

Thanks again for the thoughtful review. Hearing what's working and what would make life easier for you is exactly what helps us build something actually useful.

Thank you for this. It's great to hear the flexible, untimed format is working well for your candidates and helping reduce no-shows for your team.

The points you've raised about scoring are really valuable feedback. If candidates are writing detailed responses but not scoring well, or if the model feels too heavily weighted towards customer service for your particular campaign, that's worth looking into. Our People Science team can review how the model is calibrated for your roles to make sure it's measuring what actually matters for the positions you're hiring for.

On the AI detection flags, I understand how frustrating false positives can be. The detection is there to help surface potential concerns, but it shouldn't be creating extra work or unfairly penalising genuine candidates. I'd encourage you to raise any specific examples with your Customer Success contact so we can investigate and improve accuracy.

Thanks again for taking the time to share this. Honest feedback like yours helps us get better.

Thank you for such a thoughtful review. It's really great to hear that the behavioural insights are adding value and helping you make fairer, more informed hiring decisions. That objective, bias-free view of candidates is exactly what we set out to deliver, so it's wonderful to know it's making a difference in your process.

On the login challenges, that's frustrating and shouldn't be getting in the way of your day. If you're still experiencing issues, please do reach out to your Customer Success contact so we can get it sorted for you. Your feedback about spelling affecting scores is helpful too. We want the assessment to surface capability, personality and role fit, not penalise candidates for minor errors that don't reflect their ability to do the job. If you're seeing specific examples where spelling mistakes have had an outsized impact on a score, we'd love to take a look. Real examples help our People Science team understand where we can improve.

Thanks again for taking the time to share your experience. Feedback like this helps us keep building something that genuinely works for recruiters and candidates alike.

Thank you so much for taking the time to share this review. It's brilliant to hear that candidates, hiring managers, and your time-to-hire have all seen the benefit.

Your feedback on regional and location-level D&I breakdowns is really valuable. We know that being able to pinpoint where bias might be creeping in is critical for making meaningful change, not just seeing the headline numbers. I've passed this directly to our product team as it's exactly the kind of insight that helps us build what our customers actually need.

And we love that you're using it as a blind recruitment tool.That's exactly the level playing field we're trying to create!

Thanks again for the partnership and the honest feedback. It genuinely helps us get better.

Thank you for sharing this. It's great to hear the platform is helping you move faster and find stronger candidates.

Your point about resending interviews is really helpful feedback. When something goes wrong for a candidate, you need to fix it quickly without jumping through hoops. That friction slows you down and creates a poor experience for everyone. I've flagged this directly with our product team because it's exactly the kind of practical improvement that makes a real difference day to day.

Really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience. It helps us build a better product for recruiters like you.

Thank you for this. It's brilliant to hear the talent insights are helping you make confident hiring decisions, and that the scoring is giving your team a consistent way to evaluate candidates.

We really appreciate you taking the time to share your experience.

Thank you for this. It's great to hear the platform is saving you time and working well for both your team and your candidates.

Your point about grammar and slang affecting scores is really useful feedback. The assessment should be measuring capability and fit, not penalising candidates for how they express themselves. If you see specific examples where this feels off, please share them with your Customer Success contact so we can take a look.

Appreciate you sharing your experience.