Tool ComparisonDecision layer

Raffi vs VideoAsk vs HyRiX (White-Label Screening Economics for Agencies)

The real decision is not which screener scores best in isolation but which one matches the hiring tier you are selling: async and AI-scored flows earn their keep on volume roles, while senior searches still need a human in the loop to protect client brand perception. Price the tool against the recruiter hours it removes, and check white-label depth before promising a client a branded portal.

By InnovaAI ResearchPublished

Screening Interview Assist

Which should an agency choose?

Raffi vs VideoAsk vs HyRiX (White-Label Screening Economics for Agencies)

white-label depthcost per screened candidaterubric and scoring rigorATS and workflow integrationfit for senior versus volume roles

Raffi

Best for: Agencies selling fractional recruiting retainers where first-round volume is the bottleneck and the client wants a branded shortlist.
  • Interviews every applicant within 24 hours and returns a ranked top 3-5 shortlist against role-specific rubrics
  • Full white-label, so the shortlist arrives under the agency's brand rather than a vendor's
  • Rubric scoring gives junior recruiters a defensible reason to reject a candidate, which matters when a client pushes back
  • Ranked shortlists still need a human read before they reach a client, and that review time is the hidden cost
  • Rubric quality is only as good as the intake brief the agency writes, so sloppy job specs produce confident but wrong rankings
  • Conversational AI interviews suit volume roles poorly when candidates expect a live human for senior searches

VideoAsk

Best for: Agencies running structured screening for junior or volume positions who want one tool across video forms, async interviews, and scheduling.
  • Interactive video forms, async interviews, and live call scheduling sit in one tool, so agencies avoid stitching three subscriptions together
  • Zapier and API integrations push responses into an ATS or client portal without manual export
  • Partial white-label at the Brand tier covers most client-facing screening flows
  • Brand-tier white-label is partial, so a client with strict brand guidelines may still spot the vendor
  • No native rubric scoring, meaning evaluation consistency depends on whoever reviews the video responses
  • Video-first screening skews against candidates in markets with poor upload bandwidth

HyRiX

Best for: Recruitment and staffing agencies in India handling bulk resume intake where speed to ranked shortlist drives the retainer.
  • Parses and ranks hundreds of resumes in minutes, with AI-generated role-specific interview questions
  • Full white-label client portal lets hiring managers review and approve candidates without an agency login
  • Founding Partner pricing at ₹1,975/month for 350 resume scorings makes high-volume screening cheap to trial
  • Built for the Indian recruitment market, so pricing, compliance, and language assumptions may not transfer to other regions
  • Resume parsing rewards keyword density, which disadvantages career-changers and non-standard CVs
  • Client portal access adds a permission surface the agency must audit before sharing candidate data
Verdict

The real decision is not which screener scores best in isolation but which one matches the hiring tier you are selling: async and AI-scored flows earn their keep on volume roles, while senior searches still need a human in the loop to protect client brand perception. Price the tool against the recruiter hours it removes, and check white-label depth before promising a client a branded portal.

Browse the AcademyExplore Screening Interview Assist

More for Screening Interview Assist