This page has three parts: the modules in the order you use them, the full list of what already works, and the table of where EVO fits among the tools you already know.
Fifteen modules, organized in the order you use them. Each one has its own page with the screens from the inside.
Interviews whoever opened the role, challenges what doesn't add up and only then writes, in 13 sections, with 14 problem detectors.
See inside →AlignmentWhoever opened the role answers the agenda through a link, with no account to create. The answer becomes a confirmed fact and reprocesses the JD.
See inside →RealismThe salary asked against the market, funnel reach per requirement and the risks being taken, versioned at every negotiation.
See inside →Target companies, adjacent titles and career signals, all editable. Live sweep on your own account, at your own pace.
See inside →Local agentAn app on your machine uses the session you already signed into. No password, no cloud, with a cap that you set.
See inside →Your own databaseEvery candidate you have seen stays in a database of yours. Wishlist and blacklist flags follow the person across any role.
See inside →A score across four dimensions with text for each one, a read of the career, strengths, concerns and gaps, plus the odds of acceptance.
See inside →SalariesA range estimated by company, title and seniority, with a stated confidence level. Feeds the acceptance prediction.
See inside →TestsA technical test generated from the role, languages with spoken assessment at CEFR level, and behavioral, with a live defense of the work.
See inside →Invitation, message or InMail in your voice, citing something real from the career, sent from your account, after your approval.
See inside →InterviewsStages on a canvas with parallel groups and transitions by outcome. External interviewers score through a portal of their own.
See inside →GuideA guide per stage with a rubric of anchors, signals to look for and red flags, plus probes built from that candidate’s gaps.
See inside →Rejection and shortlist reasons, distribution by dimension and the real outcome at 90 days and 12 months feeding back into the analyses.
See inside →BiasCompares what you prioritize with what EVO prioritizes and returns the gap in plain text, set against the real outcome.
See inside →TeamSeveral hunters, roles with permission per resource, teams and clients. Two-level auditing and a manual on every screen.
See inside →79 capabilities delivered, in the order of the journey. No roadmap items mixed in: what is here already works.
Different categories of tool coexist in recruiting and solve different problems. This table is here so you can tell which one you need, not to claim we are better at everything. The last three rows are the ones we lose.
| ATSGreenhouse, Ashby, Lever | GupyBrazilian ATS with its own database | SourcinghireEZ, SeekOut, Findem | EVOPeople Finder | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finds people who never applied | No | Searches its own database, over 20M profiles | Yes | Yes |
| Challenges the role before starting the search | No | No. Its AI derives screening questions from the role | No | Yes |
| What it gives back about each person | The application record | AI fit score, across 100+ characteristics | A list with a score | An assessment per dimension, with cited evidence |
| How it reaches LinkedIn | Extension, you find the person | RSC integration, requires a LinkedIn Recruiter license | Aggregated database or cloud | Your Chrome, your session |
| Learns from the real outcome of the hire | No | Learns from who passed and who was rejected in the process | No | Yes, at 90 days and 12 months |
| Shows the bias of the person deciding | No | No | No | Yes |
| Runs interviews and tests | Schedules and records | Personality, logic and knowledge tests | No | Guide, rubric and a test generated from the role |
| High-volume application screening | Yes, it is the specialty | Yes, it is the specialty | No | No, and by choice |
| Integration with market ATSs | It is the ATS | It is the ATS | Yes | Not yet |
| A contact database ready on day one | No | Yes, over 20M profiles | Yes, millions of profiles | No, yours grows with use |
That an ATS does not go out looking for candidates is not a criticism: it was not built for that. They are systems of record for people who applied, and they do that well. The information matters because a lot of people assume the opposite and find out late. We checked the public documentation of each one in July 2026, and a "no" in this table means we did not find it publicly documented, not that it is impossible.
Gupy has hunting and a large database, more than 20 million profiles, and it is strong exactly where we chose not to compete: application volume and inbound screening. The difference in method is elsewhere. Their search happens in their own database; ours happens in your LinkedIn account, over people who never entered any database. Their AI derives screening questions from the role; ours challenges the role before starting. And they learn from who passed and who was rejected inside the process, while our loop only closes when the real outcome of the hire comes back, at 90 days and at 12 months.
What Gupy does not document publicly is where the profiles in their database come from, so we assert nothing about it. They also do not publish pricing: the plans ask you to contact sales.
If your problem is processing a thousand applications per role, an ATS solves it better. If you need ready-made integration with the tool you already use, we do not have it yet. And if you want a database of millions of contacts on day one, sourcing tools have it and we do not: yours grows as you work. We would rather say this now than in the third meeting.
It takes a real role to see EVO work, not a canned example.
Create my account