Is uxerhub validated?

Not yet, and we say so everywhere including here. The instrument is built and scoring is deterministic, but we have not run enough hires through it to publish predictive validity. Criteria's evidence base is real and ours is pending — anyone selling an assessment should be able to tell you which of those two they are, and this is which one we are.

Does uxerhub measure cognitive ability?

No. It measures what someone chooses to do in twelve specific situations and what they trade away. If your process needs a cognitive aptitude measure, it needs a psychometric instrument and this is not one.

Yes, and for a team already running Criteria that is the sensible shape: the validated battery for general capability across every hire, uxerhub for the product roles where the remaining question is fit to a specific brief.

How much does uxerhub cost compared to Criteria?

Criteria sells to enterprise and mid-market buyers and routes you to a demo rather than publishing rates. uxerhub publishes its full pricing: the first candidate is free, then credit packs at $89 for 5 candidates, $290 for 20 and $690 for 60. Credits never expire, there is no subscription, and candidates never pay.

The uxerhub alternative to Criteria, for product roles

By Sergio Gualda · 6 min read · Updated 7 September 2026

Criteria is a talent assessment platform spanning cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional intelligence, risk and skills testing, plus video interviewing and employee development. Its site cites 20+ years of talent science, validation by I/O psychologists and a scientific advisory board, 80M+ assessments completed, and 4,000+ organisations in 60+ countries. uxerhub covers six product roles with twelve written situations weighted by the capabilities you name. On evidence this is not a close comparison and we will not present it as one: Criteria has published validation and we do not have it yet. What we have is a different question — not how capable this person is in general, but whether they fit the specific role you just described.

What Criteria does better

The science, and it is not a close call. Its site cites more than twenty years of talent science, validation by I/O psychologists and a scientific advisory board, 80M+ completed assessments and 6B+ data points. That is the kind of evidence base an assessment vendor should have, and we do not have it. If published validity is your requirement, this comparison ends here and Criteria wins it.

Breadth of construct. Cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional intelligence, risk, skills and game-based assessment — a range that covers hiring for any role in the company, not one function.

It is ISO 42001 certified, which its site describes as the first international standard for AI management systems. For a regulated buyer running an assessment through procurement, that is a document we cannot produce.

And it goes past hiring into development — manager check-ins, team diagnostics, coaching — which is an entire product category we are not in.

Side by side

Everything in the Criteria column comes from their own public site. Where they do not publish something, this says so rather than guessing.

	Criteria	uxerhub
Scope	Any role, in 4,000+ organisations across 60+ countries, for hiring and for development	Six product roles — product designer, product manager, UX researcher, design engineer, front-end engineer and UX writer. Nothing else, deliberately.
What is measured	Cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional intelligence, risk and skills, with game-based options and AI proctoring	Judgment under changing constraints: which action someone reaches for first, and which they rule out entirely. Twelve written situations, no correct option among them.
Validation	20+ years of talent science, I/O psychologists and a scientific advisory board; 80M+ assessments completed	Not calibrated. Deterministic scoring and a built instrument, but no published predictive validity — stated on our own site, not only here.
What produces the score	The assessment battery you configure for the role, scored against norms	The role you describe. You name up to three capabilities the job cannot do without, and those weight the score — so the same candidate reads differently for two different jobs.
Proctoring	AI proctoring available on assessments	None. Nothing is watched and nothing is recorded.
Pricing shape	Enterprise and mid-market sales. The site routes you to a demo.	First candidate free, then credit packs that never expire. No subscription, no seat count, no demo required.

Which one you should pick

Choose Criteria if

You need published validity evidence — because of legal exposure, regulation or procurement.
You hire across many functions and want one validated measure for all of them.
You need cognitive aptitude or emotional intelligence measured specifically.
You want assessment to extend into employee development after the hire.

Choose uxerhub if

Your open roles are product roles, and the shortlist decision is genuinely hard.
You want the score weighted by what this job needs rather than against a general norm.
You want a candidate to spend fifteen minutes, not a battery, and to keep their own report.
You want to try it on one real candidate without a demo call.

Why anyone would pick the uncalibrated one

It is a fair question and it deserves a direct answer rather than a deflection.

A validated general measure tells you how capable someone is relative to a population. That is the right thing to know when you are hiring at volume across many roles, and it is why cognitive aptitude testing has survived a century of scrutiny.

It is less useful when you have six shortlisted product designers who are all clearly capable and you need to know which one fits this job. General capability does not separate them, because it is not what differs. What differs is whether they question a brief or execute it, whether they cut scope or hold the line, whether they can carry a position into a room with a founder in it — and which of those you need depends on the role you are filling.

That is the only claim uxerhub makes. It is narrower than Criteria's and it comes with less evidence, and both of those things are true at the same time.

What we do not claim

We have no published predictive validity. The instrument is built, the six banks are constructed identically and the scoring is deterministic arithmetic rather than a model, but none of that is validation and we do not present it as such. It is on our own site in the same words.

We are also not an alternative for any role outside the six we cover, we have no development product, and we cannot supply the certifications a regulated procurement process will ask for. If that is your situation, Criteria is the correct answer and this page is not trying to talk you out of it.

Frequently asked

Is uxerhub validated?: Not yet, and we say so everywhere including here. The instrument is built and scoring is deterministic, but we have not run enough hires through it to publish predictive validity. Criteria's evidence base is real and ours is pending — anyone selling an assessment should be able to tell you which of those two they are, and this is which one we are.
Does uxerhub measure cognitive ability?: No. It measures what someone chooses to do in twelve specific situations and what they trade away. If your process needs a cognitive aptitude measure, it needs a psychometric instrument and this is not one.
Can I use both?: Yes, and for a team already running Criteria that is the sensible shape: the validated battery for general capability across every hire, uxerhub for the product roles where the remaining question is fit to a specific brief.
How much does uxerhub cost compared to Criteria?: Criteria sells to enterprise and mid-market buyers and routes you to a demo rather than publishing rates. uxerhub publishes its full pricing: the first candidate is free, then credit packs at $89 for 5 candidates, $290 for 20 and $690 for 60. Credits never expire, there is no subscription, and candidates never pay.