A competitor published a comparison page about Equip containing 18 demonstrably false feature claims. Here's the full breakdown and what it says about competitive ethics in HR tech.
Before We Published This
We reached out to Adaface before writing this post. Multiple times. We contacted several senior members of their team, including the author of the comparison page, in good faith. We asked them to review and correct the inaccuracies.
No response.
We would have preferred to resolve this quietly. A simple correction would have been enough. But after weeks of silence, we're left with no choice but to set the record straight publicly.
A potential customer told us they'd used ChatGPT to research assessment platforms. The AI confidently told them that Equip lacked several features, including some that are core to our product. When we asked where that information came from, we traced it back to Adaface's blog post.
False comparison pages have always been unethical. In the age of LLMs, they're also exponentially more damaging.
We don't typically call out competitors by name. Our philosophy has always been simple: build a better product, let the results speak for themselves, and trust that customers can make informed decisions.
But there's a line between competitive marketing and outright misinformation. Adaface crossed it.
Their comparison page contains 25 false claims about Equip's capabilities—features they claim we don't have that are prominently documented across our website, help center, and product. Every single claim is verifiable with a quick visit to equip.co.
This isn't a case of outdated information or honest confusion. These are specific, categorical statements that our platform lacks features it demonstrably offers.
The Claims vs. Reality
Let's examine what Adaface tells potential customers about Equip and what those customers would find if they spent 60 seconds on our website.
Test Types: 6 False Claims
Adaface claims Equip doesn't offer these assessment types:
| Feature | Adaface Says | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Situational Judgment Tests | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Dedicated SJT feature page with workplace scenario assessments |
| Personality Tests (DISC/OCEAN) | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Both DISC and Big Five psychometric tests available |
| Typing Tests | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Typing tests prominently featured across multiple pages |
| Excel Tests | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Excel proficiency tests with live proctoring in actual workbooks |
| Business Tests | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Business Development, Sales, Customer Service, and Marketing tests in "our test library |
| Job-specific Tests | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Role-specific tests for Sales, Customer Support, Marketing, and hundreds of other functions |
Six test categories. Six false claims. All of them contradicted by dedicated feature pages that have existed on our website for years.
Customization Features: 3 False Claims
Adaface tells customers that Equip can't customize assessments:
| Feature | Adaface Says | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Custom Questions | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "Choose from ready-to-use questions or upload your own" appears across multiple pages |
| Add Your Own Questions | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Excel bulk upload and Google Forms-like interface for custom question creation |
| Customized Tests per Job Description | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Test customization by role, difficulty, and skill combination |
The irony? Customization is one of our core differentiators. Companies use Equip precisely because they can tailor assessments to their specific hiring needs.
Anti-Cheating & Proctoring: 5 False Claims
This category is particularly egregious. Adaface claims Equip lacks critical proctoring capabilities:
| Feature | Adaface Says | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Location Logging | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "IP and Geotagging: Record the IP address for each session and reverse-lookup to find the geolocation" |
| IP Proctoring | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "Multi-session detection: If a test is resumed on a different browser tab, browser, device or IP address, it gets flagged" |
| Device Fingerprint Proctoring | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "Device Fingerprinting: Detect the device and browser being used" |
| ChatGPT Protection | ❌ No | ✅ YES — Copy-paste blocking, tab switching detection, and auxiliary device proctoring |
| Large Question Bank | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "10s of 1000s of Questions across Skills and Difficulty Levels" covering 100+ skills |
Every one of these features is documented in our help center and referenced across our proctoring pages. They're not hidden. They're not new. They're foundational to how Equip's proctoring works.
Enterprise Features: 2 False Claims
| Feature | Adaface Says | Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Custom API | ❌ No | ✅ YES — REST APIs for ATS integration fully documented |
| Code Playback / Session Recording | ❌ No | ✅ YES — "Session Recording: Replay how candidates interacted with their screens while taking the test" |
Session recording is prominently featured in our marketing. API integrations are documented in our help center. Neither is difficult to find.
Misleading Claims: 2 Additional Issues
Beyond the outright false claims, two statements are materially misleading:
"Non-googleable Questions" — Listed as No. Equip uses randomized question banks where candidates see different questions, plus proctoring that detects Google and ChatGPT usage. This is a more sophisticated approach than simply claiming questions are "non-googleable."
"Language Tests (Multiple)" — Listed as "Only English." Equip supports Language Proficiency Tests with the CEFR framework. The platform itself supports 90+ languages for candidate interfaces.
Candidate Experience: "Absence of Mobile Support"?
Adaface writes:
"The absence of mobile support and a conversational interface could impact how modern and engaging the platform feels to candidates."
Equip's assessments are fully mobile-friendly. Candidates can complete tests on any device with a modern browser. This has been the case since launch.
Reporting: Another Claim Contradicted by a Single Screenshot
Adaface also claims:
"Equip's reporting lacks a detailed skill-wise analysis that breaks down performance by category. This means recruiters may miss out on insights regarding specific strengths and weaknesses of candidates, which can be critical for decision-making."
Here's what Equip's candidate report actually shows:
- Skill-by-skill breakdown (English Language, Sales, Aptitude, etc.)
- Performance percentage per skill with visual progress bars
- Granular question-level data: Questions, Unattempted, Attempted, Correct, Wrong
- Trust Score from AI proctoring
- Candidate ranking (e.g., "Rank: 1/9")
The screenshot speaks for itself. The exact feature they claim is missing is prominently displayed in every candidate report.
This isn't a nuanced disagreement about feature depth. It's a claim that a visible, core reporting feature doesn't exist. Anyone who's seen an Equip candidate report knows this is false.
Pricing: A Completely Fabricated Model with 5 Issues
The feature misrepresentations are bad enough. But Adaface also describes a pricing structure that bears no resemblance to Equip's actual model.
Here's what their page claims:
"Starter Plan: $1 per candidate, which is one of the most affordable options in the market, but lacks access to a quality test library. Growth Plan: $5,500 for 1,000 credits. Enterprise Plan: $20,000 for 400 credits."
And the editorial commentary:
"They do not provide an unlimited plan... The absence of an individual plan could also be limiting for solo recruiters or smaller teams... without an easy way to explore all features upfront, potential users might miss out."
Here's Equip's actual pricing:
| What Adaface Claims | What Equip Actually Offers |
|---|---|
| "$1/candidate lacks access to a quality test library" | $1/candidate/test includes full access to Equip's Question Bank, AI Proctoring, and custom question uploads |
| "$5,500 Growth Plan" / "$20,000 Enterprise Plan" | These tiers don't exist. Equip uses simple per-candidate pricing with no forced bundles |
| "No unlimited plan" | Unlimited recruiter accounts included. Credits never expire. |
| "No individual plan for solo recruiters" | $10 minimum payment, explicitly designed for small teams |
| "No easy way to explore features upfront" | 10 free credits (no expiry) for Assessments and AI Interviews. 3-month free trial for the ATS. |
They didn't just get details wrong. They invented an entirely fictional pricing structure, then criticized it.
The real irony? Equip's actual model is more flexible and affordable than the fabricated version Adaface described. A solo recruiter can start with $10. Credits never expire. There's no subscription lock-in.
View Equip's pricing
Why This Matters
False comparison pages aren't just an inconvenience for the companies being misrepresented. They actively harm customers trying to make informed decisions.
A CHRO evaluating assessment platforms might read that Adaface page and cross Equip off their list. They'd never know they eliminated a platform that actually offers everything they need and at a fraction of the cost!
That's not competition. That's customer manipulation.
The Broader Pattern
False comparison pages have become disturbingly common in B2B software. The playbook is predictable: create a "vs." page, fill it with checkmarks for your product and X marks for competitors, and hope Google ranks it well. Few customers verify the claims. Fewer competitors respond.
The strategy works because most companies—ourselves included, until now—prefer to stay above the fray. We'd rather invest in product development than fact-checking competitors' marketing.
But silence enables deception. When false claims go unchallenged, they become accepted truth.
Our Commitment
We've published our own comparison page that accurately represents both platforms. Every claim is verifiable. Every feature is documented.
We're also making a public commitment: Any statement we make about a competitor's platform will be accurate to the extent that publicly available documentation allows. But more importantly, if the competitor provides us with documentation that demonstrates we are wrong, we will promptly correct it.
That's the standard we believe the industry should uphold.
What You Can Do
If you're evaluating assessment platforms, don't trust comparison pages—from any vendor, including us. Instead:
- Request demos from each platform you're considering
- Check feature pages directly on vendor websites
- Ask for documentation of specific capabilities
- Talk to current customers about their actual experience
Better yet, start a free trial. At $1 per candidate, testing Equip's actual capabilities costs less than the time you'd spend reading competitor comparison pages.
The Bottom Line
Building a successful product is hard. Gaining market share against established competitors is harder. We understand the pressure to differentiate, to stand out, to win deals.
But there's a difference between highlighting your strengths and fabricating your competitors' weaknesses. The first is marketing. The second is deception.
We chose to build a comprehensive assessment platform—one that includes SJTs, psychometric tests, typing tests, Excel tests, session recording, API integrations, AI proctoring, and everything else Adaface claims we lack. We chose to price it at $1 per candidate because we believe great hiring tools should be accessible. We chose to expand beyond assessments into AI-native applicant tracking because our customers asked for it.
Those choices required thousands of hours of engineering, product development, and customer research. They required hard work.
Publishing false claims about competitors requires nothing but indifference to the truth.
Companies that can't compete on product quality resort to competing on misinformation. We'd rather compete on substance.
Have you encountered inaccurate claims about Equip or experienced the features described above? We'd love to hear from you. Reach out to our team or start a free trial to see our full platform in action.