The uxerhub alternative to Adaface, for product roles
By Sergio Gualda · 6 min read · Updated
Adaface runs scenario-based skill tests, around forty minutes, from a library its site puts at 500+ tests, with unusual depth in engineering: coding across 35+ languages, cognitive ability, business tools. uxerhub covers six product roles and shows how each candidate fits the team rather than testing a skill. For a front-end engineer they overlap, and they measure different halves of the same person. Adaface tells you whether the code works; uxerhub tells you what they'd build when the brief is wrong.
What Adaface does better
Technical depth. Coding tests across 35+ programming languages and 20+ frameworks, plus cognitive ability, SQL and data analysis. That's a library built by people who care about the domain, and nothing we have touches it.
Their stated design principle is also right: scenario-based questions about the job rather than trick puzzles. It's the same instinct behind our situations, applied to a domain where answers can be checked.
And for engineering hires generally, a test that verifies whether someone can write working code is mandatory. If you're hiring a front-end engineer and you only run uxerhub, you know how they decide and nothing about whether they can ship.
Side by side
Everything in the Adaface column comes from their own public site. Where they don’t publish something, the table says so instead of guessing.
| Adaface | uxerhub | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it is strongest | Roles where the answer can be checked: code, SQL, tools, cognition | Roles where it can't: what to build, what to cut, what to refuse |
| Library | 500+ ready-made tests across engineering, business, language and psychometrics | One instrument across six roles, with six question banks built the same way. |
| Correct answers | Yes. The test knows which answer is right. | No. Every situation is one where sensible professionals would disagree; what's measured is how this person decides. |
| Length | Around 40 minutes | About 15 minutes, no countdown |
| Fitting the role | Pick the test that matches the role | Describe the role, and the same test reads differently for it |
| Personality testing | Offers validated personality and psychometric tests | None. How someone prefers to work is described, never held against them. |
Which one you should pick
Choose Adaface if
- You're hiring engineers and need to verify they can build.
- You want cognitive ability or validated psychometrics in the process.
- You hire across business functions and want one library for all of them.
- The roles you hire for have verifiable right answers.
Choose uxerhub if
- You're hiring designers, PMs, researchers or writers, where nothing is verifiable in that sense.
- Your shortlist is four people who all pass the technical bar and you still can't choose.
- You want candidates read against what this job needs rather than what the role is called.
- You want a report in fifteen minutes of candidate time instead of forty.
For a front-end or design engineer, run both
This is the one comparison where the answer is 'both', and we'd be misleading you to say otherwise.
A front-end engineer who can't write reliable code isn't hireable, and no amount of good judgment fixes that. Run the coding test.
But every team that has hired one knows the second failure mode: the engineer who builds what the ticket says, ships it, and never once asks what happens when that list is empty, when the string is three times longer than the mock, or when one card fails and the others don't. A coding test can't see that failure. Our front-end bank is built to surface it.
The sequence that makes sense: a technical test as the gate, then uxerhub to decide among everyone who cleared it.
Why we don't run personality tests
Adaface offers validated psychometrics and is straightforward about it. We don't offer them at all. They work; the trouble is that what they measure stays stable across every job a person will ever hold, and a hiring decision is about one job.
We do show how someone prefers to work. It doesn't count against anyone. It's there for one purpose: to show where a strong candidate would still rub against your team, so you can decide whether that friction is a problem or an asset.
Frequently asked
- Does uxerhub test coding?
- No. For front-end and design engineers, uxerhub shows how someone decides what to build and what to push back on. Whether the code compiles is a question for a coding test. The two answer different questions about the same hire.
- Adaface tests are 40 minutes and yours are 15. Is shorter worse?
- It's shorter because it asks one question: how someone works in the role, and whether that fits your team. It doesn't test cognition, tool skills or language. Fifteen minutes is what that takes, and asking for forty to look more rigorous would pad a candidate's unpaid time.
- Can I use uxerhub for a data scientist or a backend engineer?
- No, and we won't build it. We cover six roles that build the product experience and whose work is deciding under ambiguity. Backend, data and infrastructure are out of scope by design, because a wider catalogue would cost us our depth.