TestGorilla vs Adaface
By Sergio Gualda · 6 min read · Updated
TestGorilla is a general talent assessment platform whose site lists 350+ tests across programming, cognitive ability, personality and language, plus AI video interviews and resume scoring — built to cover hiring across an entire organisation. Adaface is narrower and deeper: scenario-based tests of around forty minutes drawn from a library its site puts at 500+, with coding across 35+ programming languages and 20+ frameworks, alongside cognitive ability and business tools. If most of your hiring is engineering, Adaface's depth is the product. If engineering is two hires a year among twenty across the company, TestGorilla's coverage is worth more than depth you use twice.
Written by uxerhub, which sells a competing product for six product roles. Everything below about TestGorilla and Adaface comes from their own public sites. Where we fit is at the end, in its own section, and you can skip it.
TestGorilla and Adaface, side by side
| TestGorilla | Adaface | |
|---|---|---|
| Library shape | 350+ tests spread across programming, cognitive ability, personality, language and role-specific skills. | 500+ tests concentrated on technical and cognitive ground, including coding in 35+ languages and 20+ frameworks. |
| Design principle | Assemble a battery from many short tests, mixing skill, cognitive and personality measures. | Scenario-based questions about the actual job rather than puzzles, in a single longer sitting. |
| Typical length | Depends on how many tests you stack into one assessment. | Around forty minutes. |
| Engineering coverage | Present and usable, within a library built to cover everything else too. | The centre of the product. Coding across 35+ languages and 20+ frameworks, plus SQL and data analysis. |
| Non-technical coverage | Broad — sales, support, finance, language, personality. | Thinner. Cognitive and business tools are covered; the library is not built to staff a whole company. |
| Extras beyond testing | AI video interviews, resume scoring, sourcing. | Focused on assessment rather than surrounding workflow. |
Which one you should pick
Choose TestGorilla if
- You are the only person doing talent at a company that hires across many functions.
- You want video interviews or resume screening in the same tool.
- Engineering is a minority of your hiring.
- You need personality or language measures alongside skills.
Choose Adaface if
- Most of what you hire is engineering, and the depth of the coding library matters.
- You want tests that look like the job rather than abstract puzzles.
- Forty minutes of candidate time is acceptable for the roles you are filling.
- You would rather have a strong instrument for your main hiring problem than a passable one for all of them.
Depth is only worth what you use of it
Coding coverage across 35+ languages and 20+ frameworks sounds like an argument that settles the comparison, and for an engineering-led company it nearly does. Being able to test the actual stack — not an adjacent language, the real one — removes a whole class of false negatives, and a general library rarely reaches that far.
It stops mattering the moment engineering is a small share of your hiring. A talent lead filling a controller, a support lead and a marketer this quarter gets nothing from a deeper Rust test, and would have to buy a second product for the other three hires anyway.
The question worth asking is not which library is better but what fraction of next year's hires each one covers. That number usually decides it without further debate.
Where both land in the same place
For a front-end engineer, both will tell you something real about whether the person can write working code, and that is not optional information — an engineer who cannot ship is not rescued by good judgement.
Neither is built to tell you what they would build when the brief is wrong: whether they notice the design has no empty state, whether they push back on a spec that breaks at scale, or what they cut first when the date moves. Those are the decisions that consume a front-end engineer's week, and a test with a correct answer cannot reach them.
That is a limit of the format rather than a failing of either product, and it is worth knowing before you conclude that a passed coding test has answered the question.
Disclosure · our own product
Where uxerhub fits, if neither is quite it
uxerhub measures the half neither of these reaches: what a product person decides when the constraint changes. Twelve written situations, about fifteen minutes, across six product roles including front-end engineer and design engineer, scored against the capabilities you name as essential for the specific job.
For an engineering hire it is explicitly a complement rather than a replacement. If you run only uxerhub on a front-end engineer, you have learned how they decide and nothing about whether they can build — which is why we say on our own comparison pages that you should keep your coding test.
It is also not calibrated yet: the instrument is built and the scoring is deterministic, but we have not published predictive validity. Adaface's technical library is the stronger evidence base for the question it answers.
Frequently asked
- Is Adaface only for technical roles?
- Its library extends past engineering into cognitive ability and business tools, but the depth — and the reason most teams buy it — is technical. If your hiring is mostly non-technical, you are paying for a strength you will not use.
- How long are the assessments?
- Adaface's site describes tests of around forty minutes. A TestGorilla assessment varies because you assemble it from multiple short tests, so the total is whatever you stack into it.
- Which is better for hiring a front-end engineer?
- Adaface, if the question is whether they can write working code in your stack — the language and framework coverage is the deciding factor. Both will leave the judgement half of the role unmeasured, which is worth covering separately in the interview.
- Can you run both?
- You can, but for most teams it is redundant: the overlap on cognitive and technical ground is substantial. The more common pairing is one of these for skill plus something else entirely for judgement or for the non-technical roles.