Talogy vs. TestGorilla: Affordability & Ease-of-Use Comparison

TestGorilla promises simplicity and transparent pricing while Talogy offers decades of psychometric validation, but neither addresses the core volume hiring challenge: how do you assess 2,000 candidates without budget blowouts or compliance disasters?

I'll examine the true cost of ownership, operational tax, and compliance capabilities of both platforms. I'll also show why unified assessment platforms designed specifically for volume hiring reshape procurement decisions across UK and European enterprises.

The Core Difference: Enterprise Depth vs. SMB Simplicity

TestGorilla and Talogy serve fundamentally different markets with opposing design philosophies.

TestGorilla's SMB Philosophy

Founded in 2020, TestGorilla targets mid-market recruiters with self-service assessment tools designed for companies with 250-1,000 employees. According to G2 reviews praising the platform's ease of use, the company delivers 400+ skills tests spanning cognitive ability, role-specific competencies, coding assessments, and language proficiency. The platform markets its tests as "scientifically verified" and "expert-created," though some users note on G2 that "certain test modules (particularly for coding) could have much more realistic or advanced options."

The user experience prioritizes self-service deployment. Most reviewers report that TestGorilla enables "fast setup, straightforward navigation, and minimal training required" with candidates receiving "clear instructions for each test" in what users describe as a "simple, engaging, and fair" experience. The platform integrates with mid-market ATS systems including Workable, Greenhouse, and Lever.

Talogy's Enterprise Heritage

Talogy represents 75+ years of psychometric assessment history through strategic acquisitions including PSI (founded 1946), Cubiks, Caliper, and others. According to publicly available corporate information, the company serves government agencies and private enterprises including Microsoft, Coca-Cola, and Siemens. The company's solutions combine online assessments with consultative services including coaching, leadership assessments, and assessment centers designed for organizations making high-stakes talent decisions globally.

Industry sources indicate Talogy offers pre-employment tests including Cubiks Logiks ability assessments and Dilemmas situational judgment tests. The platform emphasizes depth over breadth, with solutions leveraging decades of validation data. Third-party reviews note the company's integration capabilities focus on enterprise ATS systems including Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, and iCIMS.

Here's the fundamental trade-off you face: TestGorilla optimizes for speed and self-service while Talogy optimizes for validation rigor and consultative support.

Feature Comparison: Talogy vs. TestGorilla, SOVA

Assessment Capabilities

TestGorilla's 400+ test library covers cognitive ability, personality, role-specific skills, and technical assessments. According to user reviews on G2, the company markets tests as "scientifically verified" and "expert-created," though some reviewers note limitations in certain technical modules. The platform emphasizes breadth, enabling recruiters to quickly assemble multi-skill assessments from pre-built content.

Industry sources indicate Talogy's approach prioritizes depth through assessments leveraging decades of validation data across cognitive ability, personality profiling, and situational judgment. Third-party reviews describe the company helping organizations "consistently and successfully complete each and every phase of involved, highly detailed and complicated talent assessment projects" through flexible consultancy approaches.

For volume hiring, you need both breadth (assessing diverse roles from graduates to contact center agents) and validation depth (defending selection decisions to Legal). Neither platform fully addresses this dual requirement.

Integration and Workflow Automation

TestGorilla integrates with mid-market ATS platforms, though some G2 users report difficulty tracking submissions with systems like Greenhouse. One verified user notes finding it "tough to track if people submit with greenhouse ATS."

Industry information indicates Talogy integrates with enterprise ATS systems like Workday and SuccessFactors, though the fragmented nature of acquired products can create operational complexity when you manage multiple assessment types across different interfaces.

The hidden operational tax: neither platform emphasizes automated workflow triggers that reduce your team's administrative burden from 35 hours per week to under 5 hours. When a candidate completes an assessment, you currently export a CSV, open your ATS, search for the candidate record, paste the score, manually update status to "Assessment Complete," and trigger the next-stage email. Automated workflows execute this entire sequence in 3 seconds: candidate completes assessment → score pushes to ATS via native connector → status updates to "Video Interview" → invitation email sends automatically. Multiply by 500 candidates per cohort, and you transform 35 hours of weekly admin work into under 5 hours. Manual note-taking, feedback chasing, and scorecard formatting consume hours that should focus on strategic talent decisions, and 60% of applicants abandon applications that feel too lengthy or complex.

Pricing Models: Hidden Costs in Per-Candidate vs. Credit-Based Plans

Pricing opacity creates your biggest procurement challenge when evaluating both platforms.

TestGorilla's Credit System

According to TestGorilla's support documentation reviewed on third-party forums, the platform operates a credit-based model where evaluating a candidate costs 3 credits when the candidate starts an assessment. The breakdown: skill tests, one-way video interviews, and ID verification each cost 1 credit per candidate, while conversational AI interviews cost 2 credits per candidate. Free tools (0 credits) include AI resume scoring and custom questions.

Budget implications become apparent at scale. Third-party pricing research indicates the cheapest plan starts around $83 per month billed annually for companies with 15 employees, with pricing increasing based on headcount. For organizations with 101+ employees, costs reach a minimum of $770 per month. Many reviewers on G2 express "frustration over the lack of refunds and the need to pay for minor changes" and describe the pricing model as "confusing and expensive, with hidden costs."

If you assess 2,000 candidates annually and each candidate consumes 3-4 credits (standard assessment with video), you need 6,000-8,000 credits. If each credit costs £10-15 at enterprise scale (based on third-party pricing research), total investment reaches £60,000-£120,000 annually before factoring in overage fees or additional features.

Talogy's Custom Pricing Opacity

Talogy provides custom pricing with no public rate cards. According to third-party software review sites, standard assessments may start from $50 per candidate, with comprehensive assessments including debriefing beginning at higher price points. The company requires direct contact with representatives for formal quotes.

For volume hiring, per-assessment pricing creates the same budget trap as credit models. If each assessment costs £75-100 (conservative industry estimate for enterprise psychometric testing), assessing 2,000 candidates costs £150,000-£200,000 annually. You face an impossible choice: pre-screen by CV to reduce assessment volume (perpetuating bias and missing hidden talent) or blow your budget by April.

The Volume Hiring Trap

Both pricing models punish the behavior that improves hiring quality: assessing all qualified candidates based on skills rather than credentials. When each candidate costs £75-150, you're economically incentivized to narrow the funnel using exactly the methods that have near-zero predictive validity. This includes CV screening, university prestige filters, and gut-feel phone screens.

Organizations using unlimited candidate models report assessing significantly more candidates for the same annual investment. Vodafone consolidated 60 assessments across 4 platforms into a unified subscription while achieving "significant reduction in technology cost." The implementation processed 65,000 candidates in a 6-month pilot period under unlimited pricing. That means that this volume would consume 260,000 credits under TestGorilla's model (assuming 4 credits per candidate) or cost £4.8 million under traditional per-candidate pricing at £75 per assessment.

Alternative Pricing Frameworks

Success-aligned pricing models eliminate per-candidate penalties by tying investment to hiring outcomes rather than assessment volume. Initial scoping establishes a baseline estimation (for example, in a range around £24,000 for initial scope) that scales dynamically based on actual hiring volume, candidate pool size, and scope refinements throughout the engagement. This approach removes the artificial constraint forcing you to choose between comprehensive assessment and budget predictability.

Why Volume Hiring Operators Need a Different Approach

November 2023: A UK enterprise launches its largest graduate programme ever (300 hires, up from 80 previous years). Budget approved for 400 assessments at £95 per candidate through a traditional provider. By January, 1,850 candidates apply 5× the forecast. The company can only afford to test 400, so Recruitment Operations pre-screens 1,450 by CV: Russell Group university advances, others screened out. In March, one rejected candidate (first-generation university student, 2:1 from a post-92 institution) files an employment tribunal claim alleging indirect discrimination. Legal asks for adverse impact data. The company has none because the traditional provider only tested the 400 pre-screened candidates, not the 1,450 screened out by CV. Legal settles for £28,000 to avoid tribunal. The settlement costs more than the entire assessment budget.

This scenario repeats across UK enterprises because neither TestGorilla's credit model nor Talogy's per-assessment pricing addresses the fundamental volume hiring challenge: when assessment costs scale linearly with candidate numbers, you're economically incentivized to narrow the funnel using exactly the methods with near-zero predictive validity.

Your operational reality differs fundamentally from the markets both platforms prioritize.

The Volume Hiring Operator Profile

You coordinate 200-5,000+ hires annually across diverse roles. This includes graduate schemes, contact centers, retail, hospitality, logistics. Your day involves juggling multiple systems: ATS (Workday, Greenhouse, SuccessFactors), assessment portals, video interview platforms, and spreadsheets tracking completion status. You manually send assessment invitations, chase candidates who haven't completed tests, troubleshoot technical issues, export data from three platforms, and update ATS statuses individually.

Your team currently spends 35 hours weekly sending assessment links, chasing candidate completions, troubleshooting technical issues, exporting CSV files from three platforms, and manually updating ATS statuses. Research shows skilled recruiters dedicate 45% of their time to administrative tasks, with 27% of talent acquisition teams reporting burnout due to overwhelming volumes and inadequate resources. Reducing that burden to under 5 hours through automated workflows represents 1,560 hours annually. That's nearly one full-time employee's capacity redirected from data entry to strategic talent decisions like analyzing which competencies predict 12-month performance or coaching hiring managers on structured interviewing.

The Compliance Risk Neither Platform Fully Addresses

Your Legal team requires three documentation categories to defend selection decisions in tribunal proceedings. We found no public documentation of automated annual adverse impact reporting in TestGorilla's or Talogy's materials. The capability that volume hiring operators assessing 1,000+ candidates annually need for compliance defense. While Talogy's consultancy approach likely includes compliance support, we found no explicit confirmation of automated annual adverse impact reporting in available materials.

For volume hiring operators assessing 1,000+ candidates annually, annual adverse impact reporting isn't optional. It's the documentation that prevents discrimination settlements. You need automated pass rate analysis across protected characteristics (gender, ethnicity, age) with documented validation studies proving assessments measure job-relevant competencies.

"SOVA provides candidates with an analytical and logical assessment that goes beyond what recruiters can judge from a CV alone... The customer support is excellent, offering prompt assistance with technical issues." - Nagma S on G2

The Admin Burden Reality

In volume hiring environments, per-candidate assessment pricing frequently breaks down under real operational pressure. Midway through a large-scale hiring cycle, assessment credits are exhausted after hundreds of candidates have already been screened and a shortlist identified. Thousands more remain in the pipeline, but no additional credits are available until the next billing period. Hiring teams are left with no good options: revert to CV reviews and phone screens they introduced assessments to eliminate, escalate for emergency budget approvals that are rarely granted, or pause hiring altogether despite ongoing business demand. The result is predictable. This means lost time, degraded hiring quality, and a renewed questioning of per-candidate pricing models that fail under volume conditions.

TestGorilla's ease of use addresses setup speed but doesn't eliminate the operational tax of candidate management at scale. Talogy's consultancy model provides support but maintains manual workflows. Neither platform emphasizes the automated advancement workflows that transform your team's weekly administrative burden from 35 hours to under 5 hours.

Sky achieved an 80% uplift in video interview completion (31% to 56%) and 69% increase in assessment completion (51% to 86%) by moving to a unified platform where candidates complete multiple assessment types in a single session. The consolidated experience processed 55,975 applications with 29,450 completed assessments between April and late 2024, achieving 90% candidate satisfaction.

"The platform is easy to use and user-friendly for Recruiters, Assessors and Candidates. One of the key benefits is being able to set up your assessment processes through one platform rather than multiple tools and vendors." - Verified User on G2

Top Alternatives to Talogy and TestGorilla

Beyond the binary choice between enterprise depth and SMB simplicity, specialized platforms address specific volume hiring requirements.

Sova Assessment

Sova provides a unified talent assessment platform combining psychometric assessments, video interviews, and virtual assessment centers designed specifically for UK and European enterprise volume hiring. The platform emphasizes three core differentiators for Recruitment Operations Managers:

Success-Aligned Pricing: Organizations using Sova's unlimited candidate model report assessing significantly more candidates without budget penalties. Vodafone consolidated 60 assessments across 4 platforms achieving "significant reduction in technology cost" while processing 65,000 candidates in 6 months. The engagement framework starts with a baseline estimation (for example, in a range around £24,000 for initial scope) that scales dynamically based on actual hiring volume and candidate pool evaluation scale rather than creating fixed credit limits. This model enabled Vodafone's unlimited subscription "not constrained by software licenses or assessment credits."

Unified Platform Architecture: Vodafone reduced administrative time through automated workflows where candidate completion triggers ATS status updates and advancement to next stages without manual intervention. The unified experience eliminates the tool-switching that causes 60% of candidates to abandon complex applications. When candidates complete assessments, results auto-populate your ATS (Workday, Greenhouse, SAP SuccessFactors), workflows trigger advancement to video interview stages, and rejection emails send automatically. With this, you can transform your team's weekly admin burden from 40 hours to 4 hours.

Enterprise Compliance: ISO 27001 certification, GDPR compliance with EU data residency (AWS London/Dublin), and annual adverse impact reporting for high-volume clients provide the defensibility your Legal team requires. Published validation studies using peer-reviewed methodologies demonstrate meaningful relationships between assessment scores and job performance outcomes, enabling you to defend selection processes in tribunal proceedings with documented evidence rather than hoping discrimination claims never materialize.

"Flexibility, communication, product features, expertise, candidate experience. The product roadmap is clear and there are exciting improvements coming soon particularly for self service and updated assessments." - Verified User on G2

Use Sova when you assess 500+ candidates annually across multiple assessment types (psychometric, video, virtual centers) with unlimited pricing and require annual adverse impact reporting for compliance defense.

iMocha

iMocha specializes in technical and IT skills assessment with 2,500+ pre-built tests covering coding, cloud technologies, data science, and digital marketing. Use iMocha when your volume hiring focuses primarily on technical roles requiring deep skills validation beyond general cognitive or behavioral assessment (for example, hiring 200+ software engineers annually where coding proficiency is the primary screening criterion).

Adaface

Adaface delivers conversational chatbot-based assessments designed to improve candidate experience through natural dialogue rather than traditional test formats. Use Adaface when candidate completion rates below 60% harm your employer brand and you're willing to explore engagement-focused assessment design that prioritizes candidate experience over traditional psychometric depth.

CodeSignal

CodeSignal provides advanced IDE-based coding assessments for software engineers with pair programming simulations and real-world debugging scenarios. Use CodeSignal when hiring software engineers at volume and requiring sophisticated technical evaluation beyond basic coding tests.

Testlify

Testlify offers over 3,000 ready-to-use tests with conversational AI interviews and emphasizes modern UI and speed. Use Testlify when speed and modern candidate experience outweigh the need for extensive validation documentation and compliance reporting. It's typically suitable for SMB hiring under 200 candidates annually.

Mercer Mettl Assessments

Mercer Mettl provides remote proctoring and global exam delivery with comprehensive psychometric and technical assessments. Use Mercer Mettl when assessment security and remote proctoring are top priorities, particularly for certification exams or high-stakes selection in regulated industries requiring documented test security protocols.

HiPeople

HiPeople focuses on automated reference and background check integration with talent assessment. Use HiPeople when you need to consolidate both assessment and background verification into a single platform to reduce vendor fragmentation. This is particularly valuable when hiring across multiple jurisdictions with varying background check requirements.

Making the Choice: Compliance, Cost, and Candidate Experience

Three decision criteria determine which platform fits your volume hiring operation.

Total Cost of Ownership Over 36 Months

Calculate TCO including per-candidate or credit fees, integration costs, administrative time savings, and compliance risk reduction. For 2,000 annual assessments:

Administrative time savings compound the financial impact. Reducing your team's weekly burden from 35 hours to under 5 hours represents 1,560 hours annually. That's nearly one full-time employee's capacity redirected from data entry to strategic talent decisions.

Compliance Defensibility

Your Legal team requires three documentation categories to defend selection decisions in tribunal proceedings:

1. Validation Studies: Published research demonstrating meaningful relationships between assessment scores and job performance outcomes using peer-reviewed methodologies
2. Adverse Impact Analysis: Annual reporting showing pass rates by protected characteristics (gender, ethnicity, age) proving no disparate impact
3. Job Relevance Documentation: Competency mapping showing assessed skills align with critical job tasks

We found no public documentation of automated annual adverse impact reporting in TestGorilla's or Talogy's materials, a capability that distinguishes platforms designed specifically for volume hiring compliance requirements from general-purpose assessment tools.

Candidate Completion Rates

Poor completion rates waste your assessment investment and harm employer brand. Industry information indicates Talogy clients report high completion rates with mobile-optimized, frictionless candidate experiences.

Unified platforms that eliminate multi-system logins show dramatic improvements. Sky's 69% increase in assessment completion (51% to 86%) came from three specific changes: unified login eliminating tool-switching, mobile-responsive design, and preparation resources reducing candidate anxiety. One candidate completed assessments at 11 PM Sunday, with scores auto-flowing to the ATS, triggering Monday morning video interview invitations. No more recruiter intervention. The implementation processed 29,450 completed assessments with 90% candidate satisfaction between April and late 2024.

"All the elements of the assessment process and the results are stored in one easy to access place. This means when reviewing all candidates, you can see every element and compare to make sure you make the right choice with your hiring." - Cath H. on G2

Balancing Science With Speed for Volume Hiring Success

The assessment procurement decision reveals a deeper strategic question: are you optimizing for tool selection or operational transformation?

TestGorilla and Talogy optimize for different markets. You'd be prioritizing either SMB speed versus enterprise validation, based on choice. Both maintain the per-candidate pricing model that punishes the behavior proven to improve hiring quality. When you assess all qualified candidates based on skills rather than CV credentials, you need a fundamentally different commercial framework.

For Recruitment Operations Managers processing 500+ hires annually, the platform question is actually three questions: Does your pricing model penalize comprehensive skills-based assessment? Does your workflow automation reduce admin burden by 90% or just digitize manual processes? Can your Legal team defend your selection methodology with published validation studies and annual adverse impact analysis?

Organizations switching to unified platforms designed specifically for volume hiring report transforming these trade-offs into competitive advantages. Vodafone consolidated 60 assessments across 4 platforms while processing 65,000 candidates in 6 months under unlimited pricing.

The procurement decision isn't TestGorilla versus Talogy. The decision is whether your assessment strategy will remain constrained by per-candidate economics or evolve to match your actual operational requirements.

Book a demo to see how unified assessment platforms transform volume hiring economics while maintaining scientific rigor, or explore our complete guide to assessment platform alternatives for detailed analysis across 12+ providers.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which platform is better for volume hiring operators assessing 1,000+ candidates annually?
Success-aligned frameworks eliminate budget penalties forcing CV pre-screening. Vodafone processed 65,000 candidates in 6 months under unlimited pricing. TestGorilla's credit system and Talogy's per-assessment pricing both create cost constraints preventing comprehensive skills-based evaluation at scale.

Does TestGorilla provide annual adverse impact reporting for GDPR compliance?
We found no public documentation of automated annual adverse impact reporting in available materials. Organizations assessing 1,000+ candidates annually require automated pass rate analysis by protected characteristics for legal defensibility in tribunal proceedings.

How does unified platform pricing compare to credit-based or per-assessment models?
Success-aligned frameworks start with a baseline estimation (for example, in a range around £24,000 for initial scope) scaling with hiring outcomes. Organizations report assessing significantly more candidates while reducing total technology costs through platform consolidation that eliminates 3+ vendor contracts.

What integration capabilities matter most for volume hiring?
Native ATS connectors for both Workday and Greenhouse that automatically update candidate status and trigger workflow advancement eliminate manual data entry consuming 35+ hours weekly. Sky processed 29,450 completed assessments through automated workflows achieving 90% candidate satisfaction.

Can you consolidate psychometric tests, video interviews, and virtual assessment centers into one platform?
Unified platforms combining multiple assessment types in single candidate sessions improve completion rates 50-80% by eliminating multi-system logins. Sky increased assessment completion 69% (51% to 86%) while processing 55,975 applications through consolidated experiences.

Key Terminology

Adverse Impact: Statistical analysis showing whether selection processes disproportionately exclude protected groups (gender, ethnicity, age). Annual reporting provides legal documentation defending hiring decisions against discrimination claims in tribunal proceedings.

ATS Integration: Native platform connections automatically pushing assessment scores to applicant tracking systems and triggering workflow advancement. Eliminates manual data entry consuming 35+ hours weekly for volume hiring operations through automated status updates and email triggers.

Psychometric Validation: Published research demonstrating meaningful relationships between assessment scores and job performance outcomes using peer-reviewed methodologies. Provides scientific documentation for legally defensible selection processes that withstand tribunal scrutiny.

Candidate Completion Rate: Percentage of invited candidates who finish assessments. Rates below 70% indicate poor candidate experience harming employer brand and wasting assessment investment. Unified platforms eliminating multi-system logins improve completion 50-80% by reducing friction and confusion.