uxerhub is a structured assessment for the people who build products. One set of situations per role and one standard, built so that two candidates answering the same problem can finally be compared on judgment instead of on how well they present.
Why we exist
Engineering solved candidate evaluation years ago. Imperfectly, often unpleasantly, but it solved it: there’s a technical interview, a standard exercise, and a shared idea of what good looks like.
For the roles that decide what gets built (design, product, research, front-end), nothing equivalent ever existed. The state of the art remained a portfolio and a conversation, both of which reward presentation and neither of which can show what someone does when the brief is wrong or the plan breaks.
Generative AI then removed what little signal those artefacts still carried. A convincing case study now takes four minutes to produce, whether or not the work behind it ever happened.
So we built the missing instrument, and we’re taking the time to build it properly.
How we work
01 / 04
Every candidate for a role is read against the same standard, and the report exists the second they submit. When we can't read a result with confidence, we withhold it and return the credit instead of publishing a number we don't believe.
02 / 04
The instrument is fixed and version-numbered. Any change gets a new version, because it would break comparability with every report already issued. We treat that the way a lab treats a change of instrument.
03 / 04
You decide which capabilities your role can't do without, and the report is read against your choice. The situations themselves stay confidential, because an assessment you can prepare for stops measuring anything.
04 / 04
Reports are decision aids and say so. Candidates can request human review, get a copy of everything held about them, and have it deleted. European law requires it, and we'd do it anyway.
Commitments
A company that assesses people should be judged on what it refuses to do. Here’s our list.
01 / 05
Self-report inventories predict job performance weakly, create legal exposure in selection, and the desirable answer is always obvious to the person filling them in. We measure soft skills inside the work or leave them out.
02 / 05
Candidates pay nothing for the assessment, their report or a fuller profile. Charging the person looking for work would corrupt the incentive behind every score we publish.
03 / 05
A report goes to the company that requested it and to the candidate. It goes nowhere else, and never to another company without the candidate's explicit permission.
04 / 05
You won't find fabricated testimonials, logos of companies that aren't customers, or statistics without a source you can click. When we have benchmark data it'll be because we ran the assessments, and we'll say how many.
05 / 05
We cover six roles that build the product, and we intend to keep it that way. Four hundred shallow tests is a different product that already exists, and adding breadth would cost us the depth we have.
Where we are
uxerhub is early. The product designer assessment is live; the product manager and UX researcher cases are in beta; three more roles are being written.
We won’t dress that up with invented numbers. When we publish benchmark percentiles it’ll be because we’ve run enough assessments to make them mean something, and we’ll say how many. Until then, judge us on the reports.
We’re a remote team, working across Europe. Write to us at hello@uxerhub.com, including when you think the rubric is wrong. It has changed before because somebody made a good argument.