Culture-fit assessment, measured against your own organisation
Primary sources checkedNo Bad Hire✓ Claimed by vendor
A Polish culture-fit assessment that measures the employer before the candidate: at least five of your own people fill in a survey that becomes an organisational culture profile, each candidate then takes a 10-12 minute questionnaire without seeing it, and the platform returns a percentage fit figure with strengths, risks and interview questions.
The short answer
- Best for
- A small or mid-sized employer that hires a handful of people a year and wants its culture criteria written down and measured, rather than argued about after the interview, for less than the cost of one job-board slot
- Not ideal for
- Anyone who has to defend the instrument itself: the psychometric model is never named and no reliability, validity or adverse-impact figures are published. Also anyone who needs it inside their ATS, or who hires more than ten people a month
- Price
- Free plan for one culture map and one candidate, then PLN 59 or PLN 109 net per month (about EUR 14 or EUR 25) for five or ten candidates a month
- Closest alternative
- TestGorillaThe same money buys a published test library with documented validation and a culture-add module, if you would rather have an instrument you can defend than a culture map of your own team
At a glance
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Ease of useUnknown
- ImplementationStrong
- Price transparencyStrong
- Value for moneyUnknown
- ScalabilityWeak
Why these assessments
- Recruitment fitStrong
- It does one recruitment job and nothing else: compare a candidate's work style against a measured profile of the team they would join, and hand the recruiter questions to ask about the gaps.
- Ease of useUnknown
- We have not used it. The vendor describes a short flow, and there is no independent review coverage anywhere to corroborate or contradict that.
- ImplementationStrong
- Nothing to install or connect: invitations go out by email, the vendor states the culture profile is ready the same day and a candidate needs 10 to 12 minutes. The one real dependency is getting five colleagues to fill the survey in.
- Price transparencyStrong
- The full rate card is on the home page in all three languages, with net prices, candidate caps per tier and what each plan includes. What is not published is the annual rate the terms refer to, and the price above ten candidates a month.
- Value for moneyUnknown
- The price is small and fully published, but what you get for it cannot be judged: the questionnaire's model is not named and no reliability or validity figures exist on the site, so the quality of the measurement cannot be checked from outside.
- ScalabilityWeak
- The published plans stop at ten candidates a month and there is no rate above that, no API and no ATS integration, so an agency or a team hiring at volume runs into the ceiling rather than growing through it.
Our reading of the evidence on this page. No score, no formula.
Where it sits
- Screen
- Interview
- Decision
- Hire
The SourcrLab bottom line
The idea is better than most in this category: measure the employer first, aggregate it from at least five employees, and only then ask what the candidate is like. The commercial side is clean too, with a genuinely free tier, a published rate card and a GDPR file more complete than most vendors ten times the size manage. The hole is in the middle. A tool that sells a psychometric comparison should say which psychometric model it implements and show what it has been validated against, and this one does neither, on a site whose own knowledge base tells buyers to demand exactly that. Use it as a structured interview aid, on the free plan first, and ask the two questions before it becomes part of the decision.
Best fit
An employer of five people or more that hires occasionally, wants to stop deciding fit on gut feel in the debrief, and can treat a fit percentage as one input into a human decision. At PLN 59 to 109 net a month it costs less than most single line items in a hiring budget, the free plan covers a full first run, and no card is asked for.
Think twice if
Anyone who will be asked to justify the instrument. The model behind the questionnaire is never named, no reliability or validity figures are published, adverse impact is not mentioned anywhere, and there is no independent review coverage to fall back on. In a works council conversation, a public-sector tender or a discrimination complaint, none of the vendor's pages gives you anything to hold up.
SourcrLab assessment
Everything on this page comes from the vendor's own pages, checked on the dates below. SourcrLab has not used this product in real recruitment work, so you will not find a first-hand opinion here.
Why choose No Bad Hire?
It measures your company before it measures anyone else
Most assessment tools compare a candidate against a job profile or a generic ideal. Here at least five of your own employees fill in a survey first, and the aggregated result becomes the reference point every candidate is read against. The vendor's own framing is the useful bit: the culture as it is day to day, not the one on the careers page. Individual employee answers are aggregated, so the client receives the organisational profile and not who said what.
The whole rate card is public, and it is small
Free, PLN 59 and PLN 109 net a month, with the candidate cap of each tier stated next to the price, in Polish, English and German alike. The free plan is a real one rather than a trial: one culture map, one candidate with a full fit report, no card, and the terms confirm the account does not expire. Paid plans are cancellable from the panel and an upgrade is prorated.
The data-protection file is more complete than the company size suggests
The processing page splits the roles properly (processor for candidate and employee data, controller for account data), commits to a DPA with every client, names AWS as the sub-processor, covers transfers outside the EEA with standard contractual clauses, promises breach notice no later than 48 hours after discovery, and lists retention per data category: candidate and employee data for the contract plus 30 days, account data plus three years, logs no longer than twelve months.
It is explicit that nothing is decided automatically
The processing page states in as many words that there is no automated decision-making under article 22 GDPR, that reports are informational and advisory, and that no candidate is blocked or rejected by the platform. The terms repeat it from the liability side: the vendor is not answerable for hiring decisions the client makes on its output. For a scoring product used in selection, that is the right position to have written down.
Main trade-offs
The psychometric model is never named
Every description stops at "recognised psychological models widely used in organisational psychology and HR". No model, no author, no reliability coefficient, no validity study, no norm group. The vendor's own knowledge-base article tells readers to check three things before choosing a psychometric tool: the scientific methodology behind it, documented reliability and validity figures, and whether the supplier is transparent about what it measures and how it interprets the results. Their own product pages answer none of the three, and that is the first thing to put in an email to them.
Nothing explains how the fit percentage is produced, or what a low one should mean
The output is a percentage, plus strengths, risks and a note on whether the candidate could fill a gap. How the two profiles are compared to get there is not published, and neither is any guidance on the procedural question that follows: what a hiring manager is supposed to do with a 48 per cent. The product argues, correctly, that a mismatch can be a complement rather than a defect, but a score in a selection process tends to become a threshold whatever the vendor intended, and no adverse-impact testing is published to show what happens when it does.
The AI Act is in the page title and not in the page
The legal page is called "Compliance with GDPR and the AI Act" in all three languages, and its body addresses GDPR only. There is no risk classification, no conformity statement and no transparency notice, on a product that sits in candidate selection, which is where the AI Act is strictest. The FAQ says recognised psychometric models rather than AI algorithms determine the result, and that AI is used "in selected elements of the platform" without saying which. Ask them to put that in writing before the works council does.
It stops at ten candidates a month, and stands alone in the stack
Growth caps at ten cultural-fit assessments a month; above that the site says only that the vendor will tailor something to your scale, with no published rate. There is no integration list, no named ATS or HRIS connection and no API mentioned anywhere on the site, so results live in their panel and move to your ATS by hand. For a product priced for small teams that is a defensible trade, but it does mean the tool does not grow with you.
Polish supplier, Polish currency, no Dutch
Prices are quoted in zloty on the Polish, English and German sites alike, net of VAT, invoiced by a Polish sole proprietorship under Polish law with the courts of its seat as the forum. The interface and the candidate assessment are offered in Polish, English and German; there is no Dutch. The German site is not finished either: its knowledge-base entry links to a German article slug that lands on a not-found screen, rendered in Polish. Liability is capped at three months of fees, and no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification is claimed.
Pricing and buying reality
Free plan, then PLN 59 or PLN 109 net per month (about EUR 14 or EUR 25)
- Free: one organisational culture map (whole company or one department) and one candidate with a full fit report. No card, and the terms state the account does not expire
- Starter, PLN 59 net per month: up to 5 candidates a month, plus culture mapping for the company and one department or branch
- Growth, PLN 109 net per month: up to 10 candidates a month, culture mapping for the company and two departments, priority support and immediate access to new features
- Prices are net of VAT and quoted only in zloty, on the Polish, English and German versions alike. About EUR 14 and EUR 25 at 4.32 zloty to the euro on 20 August 2026
- Monthly or annual prepayment; the terms mention promotional annual rates published on the pricing page, but that route only points back to the monthly figures on the home page
- Payment through Stripe, PayPal or Przelewy24, with VAT invoices issued automatically. Upgrades take effect immediately and are prorated, downgrades from the next billing period, and no refund is given for an unused period
- Above 10 candidates a month there is no published price: the site says only that the vendor will tailor the product to your scale
What we do not know
- The annual rate, and how much it discounts the monthly price
- Any price above 10 candidates a month
- Whether unused candidate slots carry over to the next month
- Whether extra culture maps can be bought separately, and at what price
- How many employees may fill in the culture survey; only the minimum of five is stated
Checked on the vendor's pricing page, August 2026. Pricing route, which points to the plan table on the home page where the three tiers are published
How it fits your stack
Works with
- Nothing in particular: no ATS or HRIS integration, and no API, is named anywhere on the site. Invitations go out by email, so it sits beside your ATS rather than inside it
Likely replaces
- The unstructured "would they fit the team?" round of the debrief, which is where culture judgements are usually made and never written down
May overlap with
- Personality and culture-add modules inside TestGorilla, Criteria Corp and SHL, which measure the candidate against a role profile rather than against your own team
- Engagement and culture-survey tools already asking your employees questions, if one is in place: the five-person survey is a second ask on the same people
Check before buying
- Which psychometric model the questionnaire implements, and whether reliability and validity documentation exists in any form
- Whether adverse impact has ever been tested, and what the vendor advises a hiring manager to do with a low fit percentage
- The DPA text and which AWS regions the data sits in, since transfers outside the EEA are covered by clauses rather than by staying in the EEA
- The annual price and what happens above ten candidates a month, before the free run turns into a rollout
- Which languages the candidate assessment is available in, since only Polish, English and German appear on the site
No Bad Hire vs alternatives
Products a buyer would genuinely put next to this one, with the reason you would pick each instead.
Choose TestGorilla if you want a documented test library with published validation and a price you can compare, and can live with measuring the candidate against a role profile rather than against your own team's culture.
Choose SHL if the instrument has to survive scrutiny: decades of published psychometric research, norm groups and adverse-impact work, at a price and a procurement weight that assume a large employer.
Choose HiPeople if you want behavioural and skills assessments plus automated reference checks from one vendor with ATS integrations, and are willing to ask for a quote instead of reading a price.
Choose Equip if your hiring comes in bursts: it charges about a dollar per candidate per test with no subscription and no monthly cap, which suits volume that a five or ten candidate plan would either waste or block.
Used No Bad Hire?
Tell other recruiters what worked, what did not, and who it suits. Positive, mixed or critical — all useful.
Evidence
- Culture profile is built from a survey filled in by at least five employees, and answers are aggregated so individuals are not identifiable — vendor claim, not independently verified: No Bad Hire home page: how it works, the three steps, and the FAQ
- Candidate assessment takes about 10 to 12 minutes and the culture profile is available the same day — vendor claim, not independently verified: No Bad Hire home page: how it works, the three steps, and the FAQ
- Free plan covers one culture map and one candidate report, with no card and no expiry — checked against a primary source: Pricing route, which points to the plan table on the home page where the three tiers are published
- Starter is PLN 59 and Growth PLN 109 net per month, capped at 5 and 10 candidates a month — checked against a primary source: Pricing route, which points to the plan table on the home page where the three tiers are published
- Prices are published only in zloty, on the Polish, English and German versions of the site alike — checked against a primary source: Pricing route, which points to the plan table on the home page where the three tiers are published
- The operator is a Polish sole proprietorship, WODA Aneta Wodarz-Krasnodębska in Chrząstowice, NIP 9910416653, under Polish law — checked against a primary source: Terms of service: operator identity, plan definitions, billing and cancellation
- Processor for candidate and employee data, DPA with every client, AWS as sub-processor, standard contractual clauses for transfers, breach notice no later than 48 hours after discovery — vendor claim, not independently verified: Data-processing page, titled compliance with GDPR and the AI Act
- No automated decision-making under article 22 GDPR; reports are advisory and no candidate is rejected by the platform — vendor claim, not independently verified: Data-processing page, titled compliance with GDPR and the AI Act
- The compliance page is titled for GDPR and the AI Act, but contains no AI Act risk classification, conformity statement or transparency notice — checked against a primary source: Data-processing page, titled compliance with GDPR and the AI Act
- The vendor's own article tells buyers to check methodology, documented reliability and validity, and vendor transparency before choosing a psychometric tool — checked against a primary source: The vendor's own knowledge-base article on psychometric testing in recruitment
- Which psychometric model the questionnaire implements, and any reliability, validity or adverse-impact documentation — not enough evidence
- How the fit percentage is computed from the two profiles — not enough evidence
- Independent review coverage: no G2 or Capterra listing was found, so nothing here is corroborated from outside the vendor — not enough evidence
- Team of 2 to 10 people; two founders named by first name only on the about page — vendor claim, not independently verified: About page: the two founders and why they built it
Last reviewed: August 2026. How SourcrLab verifies information
No Bad Hire has claimed this profile.
You are welcome to show the Claimed badge on your own site. Optional, free, and not a rating.