uxerhub is a structured assessment for the people who build products. One questionnaire per role, one scale, one arithmetic — 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 is 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 was ever built. 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 are trying to build it properly rather than quickly.
How we work
Scoring is arithmetic. No person grades it, no language model reads it, and the same twelve situations produce the same numbers every time — which is why a report exists the second a candidate submits. And when a result cannot honestly be read, we withhold it and return the credit rather than publish a number we do not believe.
Scoring anchors are written down, fixed, and version-numbered. Changing an anchor requires a new version, because it invalidates comparability with every report already issued. We treat that the way a lab treats a change of instrument.
The six capabilities, the four style scales, and the fact that the weights are yours rather than ours are all published on this site. The situations themselves are confidential — an exam you can prepare for stops measuring anything.
Reports are decision aids and say so. Candidates can request human review, get a copy of everything held about them, and have it deleted. This is a requirement under European law and it is also simply correct.
Commitments
A company that assesses people should be judged on what it refuses to do, not on what it promises. These are the refusals.
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 are not going to dress that up with invented numbers. When we publish benchmark percentiles it will be because we have run enough assessments to make them mean something, and we will say how many. Until then, judge the method — it is all published.
Remote team, working across Europe. Written to us at hello@uxerhub.com, including when you think the rubric is wrong. It has changed before because somebody made a good argument.
Invite one candidate and read their report the moment they finish.