How we score
The five rating levels, explained.
Every platform on HRCritic is scored on six weighted criteria during a hands-on evaluation that lasts at least 60 days. The weighted total, out of 100, maps to one of five levels. Here is exactly what each level means and how the score behind it is built.
What each level means
- ExceptionalScore 90 – 100 / 100
Best in class. Sets the standard for its category.
Excels on nearly every criterion, with no significant weakness. Rare — most categories have one or none. Reserved for platforms we would recommend without reservation to almost any HR team.
- Very GoodScore 75 – 89 / 100
A strong choice with minor gaps.
Performs well across the board with shortcomings that are easy to work around. A safe recommendation for most teams; the gaps usually matter only in specific edge cases or at unusual scale.
- AverageScore 60 – 74 / 100
Does the job. Meets common needs.
Competent at the core workflow but unremarkable, or strong in some areas while clearly weak in others. A reasonable pick when it fits your exact needs, but worth comparing against Very Good alternatives first.
- Below AverageScore 40 – 59 / 100
Notable gaps for most HR teams.
Meaningful problems in core functionality, usability, reliability or support that most teams will feel within weeks. Choose only if a specific feature or price point outweighs the drawbacks.
- PoorScore 0 – 39 / 100
Hard to recommend today.
Serious deficiencies: broken workflows, unreliable data, or support that leaves you stranded. We assign this level only after confirming the problems persist across the full testing period.
The six criteria and their weights
Each criterion is scored from 0 to 100, multiplied by its weight, and summed. Core functionality carries the most weight because a beautiful product that fails at its main job is still a failure.
Core functionality
30%Does the product do its main job well? For an ATS that means pipelines, posting and interview scheduling; for payroll, accurate runs and tax filings. We work through the complete core workflow end to end, the way a real HR team would.
Ease of use
20%How quickly can a new HR user become productive without training? We time common tasks, count clicks, and note where the interface helps or gets in the way.
Reliability & performance
15%Uptime, speed and data accuracy observed across the full testing window. A payroll error or a lost candidate record weighs heavily here.
Support quality
15%We contact support through every available channel with real questions — simple and hard — and measure response time, accuracy and follow-through.
Integrations & ecosystem
10%How well the platform connects with the rest of an HR stack: HRIS, calendars, job boards, identity providers and APIs.
Value for money
10%What you get for the price compared with alternatives in the same category, including hidden costs such as implementation, add-ons and per-seat surprises.
Why 60 days of testing
A demo account and a weekend of clicking around can tell you what a product claims to do. It cannot tell you what it is like to depend on it. That is why every HRCritic evaluation runs for a minimum of 60 days of hands-on use before a rating is published.
Sixty days is long enough to run complete real-world cycles: full payroll runs including month-end and tax deadlines, entire hiring pipelines from posting to offer, background checks from request to report. It is long enough for slow support queues, sync failures and billing surprises to surface — the problems that never appear in a sales demo.
Platforms that cannot be tested hands-on, or that have not yet completed the 60-day window, show Not yet rated. We would rather publish no score than an unsupported one.