Willo alternative that conducts the interview instead of recording it

The difference is who is in the room. Willo is asynchronous video interviewing: you write a fixed set of questions, candidates record their answers whenever suits them, and your team reviews the videos afterward. An AI interview agent conducts the interview in real time, asking the next question based on what the candidate just said.

That distinction matters most on the answers that are almost good. A candidate who gives a vague response to a question about handling an escalation might have a strong story sitting one follow-up away. A recorder never asks for it. The agent does, and then scores what it hears. If you want the full picture of how the async model works and where it fits, we go through it on our one-way video interview software page.

As of July 2026, Willo publishes three tiers. Growth is 209 dollars a month billed yearly, or 279 dollars month to month, and includes 2 assessments and up to 4 users. Scale is 307 dollars a month billed yearly, or 409 monthly, with 10 assessments and up to 20 users. Enterprise is custom-quoted with unlimited assessments and users.

InterviewAgent.ai starts at 149 dollars a month, with 399 and 999 dollar tiers for higher interview volumes. Prices move, so check both pricing pages before you decide. We keep a verified breakdown of what everyone in this category charges in our guide to AI interview software cost.

Not in the sense of conducting the interview. Willo Intelligence is an AI layer on top of asynchronous video: it transcribes what candidates recorded, summarizes it, benchmarks candidates against each other, and can suggest follow-up questions for a later round. The interview itself is still a candidate talking to a camera with a preset question on screen.

This is a real distinction worth checking with any vendor you evaluate, because a lot of async video products now market themselves with the word AI. The question to ask on a demo is simple: does the software ask the second question because of what the candidate said in the first one? If the answer is no, it is scoring recordings, not interviewing.

Candidate reaction to one-way video is the well-documented weak spot of the format. Talking to a camera with no one on the other end feels like being processed, and the complaint that follows is always the same: there was no chance to clarify, ask anything back, or recover from a bad first sentence. Drop-off is the cost.

A conducted interview reads as a conversation, which is why we run it that way, with clear disclosure that the interviewer is AI and consent before anyone starts. Candidates can ask the agent to repeat or rephrase a question, and they get follow-ups instead of silence. Neither format beats a human recruiter on warmth, but a two-way exchange is a materially better experience than a recording light.