HR AI Index

Index › Vendors › Glider.ai · September 2026 Edition

2 categories · Named, not ranked

Glider.ai

12Judge labels

1First choices

8Negative labels

8 of 12Models named it

2Categories

September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table vv2026-09.1, every buyer segment counted.

Standing

6 labels, too few to rank

A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. Glider.ai was named 6 times in Technical hiring assessm and 1 other category, where HackerRank led with 28%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.

By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.

Small businessnot named

No model named it for this buyer.

Mid-market50 of 52

under the label threshold

Enterprise8 of 38

under the label threshold

In technical hiring assessm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named Glider.ai for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Technical hiring assessments	Talent acquisition	0%	50 of 52	75%	4	under 10 labels · led by HackerRank at 28%
Candidate assessment	Talent acquisition	0%	97 of 101	100%	2	under 10 labels · led by TestGorilla at 68%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Glider.ai yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Glider.ai across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	First choice	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	0	1
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	1
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	2	2
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	1	1
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	1	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct1 labelNone

Paraphrase2 labels1

Comparative3 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained0 labelsNone

Scale-constrained0 labelsNone

Negative6 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative12 labels in all, every segment counted; 1 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“offering the best balance of AI-powered interviews, assessment accuracy, security, and hiring analytics for most enterprise organizations” Claude Haiku 4.5 · Technical hiring assessm · comparative prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“If there is one platform that demands the most caution, it is Glider.ai. It has a near-unanimous negative reputation among developers” DeepSeek V4 Flash · Technical hiring assessm · negative prompt · hard negative

“Described as the "worst online assessment tool in 15 years" on Reddit” Grok 4.1 Fast · Technical hiring assessm · negative prompt · hard negative

“Avoid: Platforms with "Big Brother" Proctoring (e.g., Glider.ai)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · Technical hiring assessm · negative prompt · hard negative

“has been called one of the worst assessment tools by some users” MiniMax M2.5 · Candidate assessment · negative prompt · hard negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Glider.ai, over the 12 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Glider.ai was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

TestGorilla9 of 120Not in the top three

HackerRank7 of 122Not in the top three

Codility7 of 121Not in the top three

CodeSignal6 of 121Not in the top three

CoderPad5 of 122Not in the top three

Mercer | Mettl2 of 120Not in the top three

ProctorU2 of 120Not in the top three

iMocha2 of 120Not in the top three

Byteboard1 of 121Not in the top three

Vervoe1 of 121Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Glider.ai. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 10 of the 12 answers that named Glider.ai and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

codility.com6

g2.com5

glider.aiYour site5

reddit.com5

testlify.com5

codesignal.com4

linkedin.com4

testtrick.com4

utkrusht.ai4

hackerrank.com3

Forty of the forty-five domain citations in answers naming Glider.ai came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

codility.com/how-to-choose-technical-assessment-platform6

glider.ai/best-platform-technical-skills-assessments5

reddit.com/r/cscareerquestions/comments/o8ig5t/anyone_take_an_assessment_with_test_gorilla4

reddit.com/r/datascience/comments/1ets28n/worst_online_assessment_tool_ive_encountered_in4

testtrick.com/blogs/best-technical-assessment-tools4

codesignal.com/blog/5-coding-assessment-platforms-for-your-technical-hiring3

g2.com/products/hackerrank-developer-skills-platform/reviews3

glider.ai/blog/best-platform-technical-skills-assessments3

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Names read as Glider.ai

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Glider.ai; a claim can dispute any of them.

Glider AI 1

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Glider.ai's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Glider.ai, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at glider.ai is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.