AI screening and live video interview layer in front of the ATS
Primary sources checkedPloyo
Screening layer that runs a live, adaptive AI video interview with every applicant on the same rubric, then hands the ATS a ranked shortlist with recordings, transcripts and the evidence behind each name.
The short answer
- Best for
- Employers and staffing agencies with large, repeatable applicant flows who want every candidate assessed the same way instead of the first fifty CVs getting all the attention
- Not ideal for
- Low-volume or senior hiring, where adding an automated interview stage creates more process than it removes
- Price
- Quote only, scoped to applicant flow. Explicitly not per seat
- Closest alternative
- Talvin AIChoose Talvin AI when you want published per-minute pricing you can model yourself, rather than a package scoped in a founder conversation
At a glance
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Ease of useUnknown
- ImplementationFair
- Price transparencyWeak
- Value for moneyUnknown
- ScalabilityFair
Why these assessments
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Built for one stage of one process: the first assessment of an applicant, with the ATS explicitly left in place as the system of record.
- Ease of useUnknown
- For recruiters the interface is a ranked list, which sounds simple. What we cannot judge without using it is whether the evidence behind a ranking is quick to check or a second job.
- ImplementationFair
- Not replacing the ATS keeps the project small, but the trigger, the write-back and the failure path still have to be configured and tested per requisition type.
- Price transparencyWeak
- Nothing is published. The vendor is at least clear about the shape, applicant flow rather than seats, but the shape is not a number and cannot be budgeted.
- Value for moneyUnknown
- Interviewing everyone is either the best or the most expensive idea in the category, depending on a price we do not have and a quality signal we have not measured.
- ScalabilityFair
- Volume-based pricing scales with the problem rather than the team, which is the right shape. The risk is the same shape in reverse: a hiring surge is also a cost surge.
Our reading of the evidence on this page. No score, no formula.
Where it sits
- Apply
- Screen
- Interview
- ATS
- Decision
The SourcrLab bottom line
Ployo makes two choices that separate it from most AI screening tools. It refuses to be the system of record, pushing shortlists into Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, Ashby and others rather than asking you to move; and it puts every applicant through the same live, adaptive video interview rather than only those who pass a CV filter, which changes what the ranking means. The evidence trail, recordings, transcripts and timestamped citations, is the part that makes the ranking auditable rather than magical. What you cannot do from the website is cost it: pricing is a conversation, sized on applicant flow.
Best fit
A talent team or staffing agency receiving hundreds of applications per role where, honestly, most of them are never properly read. Ployo's proposition is that everyone gets the same live interview and the same rubric, which is a fairness argument as much as an efficiency one.
Think twice if
The moment a ranking decides review order, it decides who gets seen. Before rollout, write down who may override a ranking, what a recruiter must check before rejecting, whether the bottom of the list is ever read, and what you tell a candidate who asks how they were assessed. Consent is gated in the product and recordings default to ninety days, so what is left to settle is your own policy rather than the switch.
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 Ployo?
Everyone gets the same interview
Rather than filtering CVs and interviewing the survivors, Ployo interviews each applicant across every open role and ranks them on one rubric. In a funnel where attention runs out after the first fifty applications, assessing everyone the same way is a defensible position rather than a marketing line.
The ranking comes with its evidence attached
Every name arrives with a recording, a full transcript and timestamped insight pointing at what was said. That is the difference between a score you have to trust and a score you can check in ninety seconds, and it is what makes an appeal or an audit possible at all.
It refuses to become your ATS
Shortlists are pushed into Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, Ashby and a vendor-claimed sixty-plus other systems. Deliberately staying in front of the system of record removes the biggest objection to this category, which is that a screening tool quietly becomes a second place candidates live.
A live conversation, not recorded answers
The candidate joins on camera and the interview adapts as it runs: role-aware questions, and a follow-up where an answer stays vague. That is a different product from one-way video, where somebody records into a void and the obvious second question never gets asked. The hiring team gets the recording of an actual conversation back, which is also a better thing to defend to a candidate.
Main trade-offs
No price, and no way to model one
Packaging is scoped per team with the founder. It is honest positioning for an early company, but it means you cannot compare Ployo with a per-minute or per-interview competitor without booking a call and disclosing your volumes first.
Volume pricing cuts both ways
Sizing on applicant flow is fair when flow is stable and punishing when it is not. A viral job post or a seasonal campaign multiplies the bill in the same month it multiplies the workload. Agree in advance what happens above the assumed volume.
Interviewing everyone still means recording everyone
Ployo answers more of this than most of the category: the candidate must give explicit consent before recording begins and the interview cannot start until they do, and retention is ninety days by default, configurable per customer. Your side is still open. Decide the lawful basis you rely on, whether ninety days matches your own policy, what happens to an applicant who declines, and whether recordings feed any model, before the first campaign rather than after it.
Connector count is not connector depth
Sixty-plus integrations is a claim about breadth. What matters is your own: what triggers the screen, which fields come back, what happens when the ATS rejects a write, and whether a failed interview leaves a candidate stuck in a stage nobody monitors.
Pricing and buying reality
Quote only, scoped to applicant flow rather than seats
- Ployo routes buyers to a live-role demo and a scoping conversation rather than publishing a rate card
- The vendor states explicitly that packaging is tied to applicant flow and is not per-seat licensing, so volume assumptions drive the comparison
- No free plan or public trial was found on the reviewed pages
What we do not know
- The unit the package is actually built on: applications, interviews or minutes
- What happens commercially when applicant volume exceeds the assumption
- Minimum contract term and whether a paid pilot on one role is available
- Whether candidate recordings or transcripts train any model. Retention itself is stated as ninety days by default and configurable per customer
Checked August 2026. We do not list a price we have not verified ourselves.
How it fits your stack
Works with
- Greenhouse, Lever, Workday and Ashby, plus a vendor-claimed 60+ other ATS systems
- Your existing careers site and application flow
Likely replaces
- Manual CV review on high-volume requisitions
- The first-round recruiter screening call
May overlap with
- AI voice interviewing such as Talvin AI
- One-way video tools such as Hireflix or ScreeningHive
- Screening and ranking already inside an enterprise ATS
Check before buying
- The exact ATS trigger, the write-back fields and the failure path
- What the package costs at your realistic peak applicant volume
- How consent is captured, and whether the ninety-day default retention and its deletion path match your own policy
- Written rules for human override of a ranking, and who reads the bottom of the list
Ployo vs alternatives
Products a buyer would genuinely put next to this one, with the reason you would pick each instead.
Used Ployo?
Tell other recruiters what worked, what did not, and who it suits. Positive, mixed or critical — all useful.
Evidence
- Ployo runs role-specific AI interviews with applicants and returns a ranked shortlist with recordings and full transcripts — checked against a primary source: Ployo product site
- The product covers CV parsing with cited evidence and a live, adaptive AI video interview the candidate joins on camera. The vendor states there is no voice-then-video sequence and no recorded one-way answers; earlier wording on this page describing a voice screen followed by video was corrected on 23 August 2026 — vendor claim, not independently verified: Ployo features
- The vendor states that staffing and recruitment agencies are one of its strongest segments, with a care staffing agency as reference customer and a dedicated page at ployo.ai/agencies. SourcrLab has not opened that page — vendor claim, not independently verified
- The vendor states that candidates must give explicit consent before any recording begins, that the interview cannot start until they do, and that recordings are retained for ninety days by default, configurable per customer — vendor claim, not independently verified
- Ployo pushes shortlists into Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, Ashby and a vendor-claimed 60+ other systems, and states it sits in front of the ATS rather than replacing it — vendor claim, not independently verified: Ployo product site
- Packaging is scoped per team rather than sold from a public price list, and is stated not to be per seat — checked against a primary source: Ployo product site
- Whether candidate recordings or transcripts are used to train any model — not enough evidence
- SourcrLab has not used this product in real recruitment work. — not enough evidence
Last reviewed: August 2026. How SourcrLab verifies information
Work at Ployo?
Email us to verify this profile or suggest a factual update.