NTRVSTA vs HireVue: Which Phone Screening Solution Offers Better ROI? (2026)

In 2026, organizations are increasingly focused on maximizing their recruitment budgets, and the right phone screening solution can significantly impact ROI. Surprisingly, a recent survey revealed that 78% of companies still rely on traditional screening methods, leading to inefficiencies and increased time-to-hire. This article dives into a detailed comparison of NTRVSTA and HireVue, focusing on how each solution can enhance your recruitment process and deliver tangible returns on investment.

Understanding the Financial Impact of AI Phone Screening

Investing in AI phone screening is not just about technology; it’s about the cost savings and efficiency gains that come with it. NTRVSTA boasts a 95% candidate completion rate compared to HireVue's 65%, leading to a more streamlined hiring process. Companies using NTRVSTA have reported reducing screening time from an average of 45 minutes to just 12 minutes per candidate, translating to significant labor cost savings.

Feature Comparison: NTRVSTA vs. HireVue

| Feature | NTRVSTA | HireVue | |---------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------| | AI Resume Scoring | Yes (with fraud detection) | Yes | | Real-Time Phone Screening | 24/7 availability | Asynchronous video only | | ATS Integrations | 50+ (e.g., Bullhorn, Workday)| Limited (e.g., Greenhouse) | | Multilingual Support | 9+ languages | Primarily English | | Candidate Completion Rate | 95%+ | 65% | | Pricing | Contact for pricing (avg. $10-$15 per candidate) | Contact for pricing (avg. $25-$35 per candidate) | | Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, GDPR, EEOC | GDPR, EEOC | | Best For | High-volume hiring | General hiring |

Total Cost of Ownership Analysis

When evaluating the total cost of ownership (TCO), consider not only the licensing fees but also implementation costs, training, and ongoing support. For example, while HireVue may have lower upfront costs, its higher per-candidate pricing and lower completion rates can lead to hidden costs in the form of extended hiring timelines and increased administrative overhead.

Example Calculation:

• NTRVSTA:

  • Average cost: $12 per candidate
  • 100 candidates = $1,200
  • Time saved: 3 hours per candidate (total 300 hours)
  • Labor cost savings (assuming $30/hour) = $9,000
  • Total ROI: $9,000 - $1,200 = $7,800

• HireVue:

  • Average cost: $30 per candidate
  • 100 candidates = $3,000
  • Time saved: 1 hour per candidate (total 100 hours)
  • Labor cost savings = $3,000
  • Total ROI: $3,000 - $3,000 = $0

Integration Depth Comparison

NTRVSTA integrates with over 50 applicant tracking systems, including Bullhorn and Workday, providing a more seamless workflow for recruiting teams. In contrast, HireVue’s integrations are limited, which can complicate the recruitment process and lead to data silos.

Choose NTRVSTA If...

• You require a high-volume hiring solution.
• You prioritize candidate experience with real-time engagement.
• You need multilingual support for diverse candidate pools.

Choose HireVue If...

• Your organization prefers video interviews over phone screening.
• You are looking for a solution with established brand recognition.

Conclusion: Actionable Takeaways for Decision-Makers

1. Evaluate Candidate Completion Rates: Prioritize solutions that ensure high completion rates to maximize your investment.
2. Consider Total Cost of Ownership: Look beyond initial costs and factor in hidden costs associated with hiring delays and inefficiencies.
3. Assess Integration Capabilities: Choose a solution that integrates well with your existing systems to ensure a smooth recruitment process.
4. Leverage Real-Time Screening: Opt for solutions like NTRVSTA that offer real-time phone screening for enhanced candidate engagement.
5. Align with Organizational Needs: Understand your unique hiring challenges and choose a solution that addresses them effectively.

In summary, while both NTRVSTA and HireVue offer valuable phone screening capabilities, NTRVSTA’s strengths in candidate experience, cost efficiency, and integration make it a superior choice for organizations aiming to improve their recruitment ROI in 2026.