AI interview software pricing: what AI and video interview software costs

For a small or mid sized US employer, expect somewhere between 75 and 500 dollars a month for a tool with published pricing, and a five figure annual contract for an enterprise platform that quotes after a demo. The cheapest published option in this market is Hireflix at 75 dollars a month for companies under 50 staff, but that buys one way video recording rather than a conducted interview. Tools where an AI actually runs and scores the interview start around 149 dollars a month.

The spread is wide because the label covers two genuinely different products. Recording software is cheap to operate, so it is cheap to buy. Software that conducts a real time conversation, follows up on a weak answer and scores every response against your rubric costs more to run and is priced accordingly. Comparing the two on monthly fee alone will always make the recorder look like the better deal, and the section on review hours below is where that falls apart. If you are still working out which vendor sits in which group, the feature by feature breakdown is on our AI interview software comparison.

Five of the ten vendors here publish nothing. The usual stated reason is that pricing depends on volume, modules and integrations, which is partly true for genuinely modular enterprise suites like VidCruiter. The commercial reason is that a quote given after a discovery call can be tailored to what the buyer appears able to pay, and a published number removes that flexibility. It also filters out small buyers before they consume sales time.

For a buyer this has a practical cost beyond the price itself. You cannot build a shortlist on budget without booking demos with vendors you may immediately rule out, which is typically two to four weeks of calendar time. A reasonable way to protect your own schedule is to ask for a rough range in the first email, before agreeing to a demo. Vendors who will not give a range at that stage are usually the ones with annual minimums well above what a mid market team wants to spend.

That figure circulates widely in comparison roundups and we do not publish it as fact, because we cannot verify it. HireVue does not publish pricing anywhere on its own site, so every public number for it traces back to third party estimates, resale listings or buyer anecdotes rather than the vendor. Some roundups quote 35,000 dollars a year, others quote ranges reaching six figures, and the sources they cite frequently contradict one another.

What can be said accurately is narrower and more useful. HireVue sells annual enterprise contracts, quotes after a qualification call, and added a conversational AI Interviewer to its assessment suite in June 2026. If you need a real number, the only reliable route is a quote for your own hiring volume. Treat any specific dollar figure you read about a vendor that publishes no pricing, including in this page, as an estimate rather than a price. Our HireVue alternative comparison covers what the platform does in more detail.

There are five models in this market and the cheapest one depends almost entirely on the ratio between how many people you interview and how many people log in to review them. Per seat pricing is charged for each recruiter and hiring manager with an account, so the bill tracks the size of your team rather than the amount of hiring you do. That is excellent for a two person team screening constantly, and painful once eight hiring managers each want view access to their own pipeline. Metaview Pro at 100 dollars per user a month is 200 dollars for two reviewers and 800 dollars for eight, with identical hiring volume behind both numbers.

Per interview and per hire pricing invert that. They cost almost nothing during a quiet quarter and scale directly with a hiring spike, which suits seasonal employers and hurts anyone running one large annual campaign. Sapia charges per hire and openly targets employers making 500 or more hires a year, which tells you the model needs volume to work. Flat subscription pricing sits between the two: predictable, easy to budget, and the one to check for interview caps and overage rates, because a flat fee with a cap is a per interview plan wearing a disguise.

The sticker price is rarely the contract value. Four line items move a cheap looking quote into a different bracket, and all four are easier to negotiate before you sign than after. Implementation and onboarding fees are the most common, particularly with enterprise suites that configure question libraries and scoring models for you. Integration work is the second: an ATS integration is often quoted separately, and single sign on is very commonly gated behind the top tier regardless of company size.

The third is the annual minimum, which matters most if your hiring is lumpy. A contract priced per interview with a 12 month minimum commitment charges you for the quiet quarters too. The fourth is the overage rate on interviews beyond your tier, which is where a flat plan quietly becomes usage pricing. Ask for the overage rate in writing and model it against your busiest month rather than your average month, because the busiest month is the one that will trigger it.

Only if nobody watches the videos, which rather defeats the purpose. One way video tools are genuinely inexpensive to license, and Hireflix at 75 dollars a month with unlimited responses is the clearest example in this market. What the licence does not cover is the review time, because a recorded answer is not an evaluation. Somebody on your team still has to watch it, form a judgment and write it down.

The arithmetic is worth doing with your own numbers before you choose on price. Take a req with 200 applicants and a 12 minute recorded screen. Watching every submission in full is 40 hours of someone's week, and that is before scoring, note taking or the follow up questions that a recording cannot ask. At a loaded recruiter cost of 40 dollars an hour, that single req carries about 1,600 dollars of review labor against a 75 dollar licence. Teams handle this by skimming at double speed or by watching only the first few minutes, which restores the throughput and quietly discards the consistency the structured screen was supposed to buy. Software that conducts and scores the interview moves that cost into the subscription instead, which is the honest way to compare the two: total cost per screened candidate, not monthly fee.

Cost per screened candidate is the metric that makes these plans comparable, and it is easy to calculate once you know your monthly volume. Divide the monthly fee, plus any overage and a realistic estimate of internal review hours, by the number of candidates you screen in that month. A 399 dollar plan across 300 candidates is about 1.33 dollars a screen with no review labor attached. A 75 dollar plan across the same 300 candidates is 25 cents in licence and considerably more than that once someone watches 60 hours of video.

Run the same calculation against the alternative you are really choosing between, which for most teams is not another vendor. It is the status quo of recruiters running phone screens themselves. SHRM benchmarking puts average cost per hire at 5,475 dollars for non executive roles, with screening and interviewing each consuming eight to nine days of the process. Against that, the software line item is small and the question worth asking is whether it removes recruiter hours or simply relocates them. Our page on high volume hiring software works through the same math at larger req sizes, and cost per hire benchmarks covers where the rest of the money goes.