ScaleReal hires 8-10 developers every year for multiple projects. Their team was drowning in interviews—minimum 12 per week, and 70% of candidates failed even basic technical rounds.
They needed a better shortlisting method. Not another recruiter. A better method to know who could actually code before wasting everyone's time.
What they used before
Combination of recruitment agencies + custom questions created internally by the team
Key Challenges
~1/3rd time spent just on hiring activities. Spent on candidates who didn't pass even basic fundamentals. Needed a method to screen and shortlist qualified candidates before they speak to them
Key Outcomes
ScaleReal reduced interview load by 70% (from 12/week to 2/week) and now only interviews candidates who've already proven their technical depth. It's a much faster and more confident hiring decision every time.
What They Were Doing Before
ScaleReal was stuck in the classic tech hiring trap: not enough resources to build a massive recruiting machine, but desperate need to hire good engineers consistently.
Their approach was a combination of everything most small companies try:
Job boards, Recruitment agencies, Posting on whatsapp/social groups, Internal technical Tests, Manual screening, etc.
The result? The engineering team was doing like 12-15 technical interviews per week—and most were a complete waste of time.
Senior engineers who should be building product were instead explaining why a candidate's "5 years of React experience" didn't translate to understanding basic JavaScript fundamentals.
It wasn't sustainable. And it definitely wasn't scalable.
The Challenges & Pain Points
ScaleReal's hiring problem came down to one truth: they couldn't tell who could actually code until after they'd wasted hours interviewing them.
1. ~70% of Candidates Failed Technical Rounds
The math was devastating:
12 technical interviews per week
8-9 candidates (70%) failed basic fundamentals questions
3-4 candidates (30%) passed and moved forward
That's roughly 9 wasted interviews per week. At 1-2 hours per interview, that's 12-18 hours of senior engineering time per week spent talking to people who had no business being in the room.
Multiply that by 4 weeks, and you're burning 48-72 hours per month on failed interviews. That's more than a full-time engineer's worth of productivity—gone.
And here's the worst part: the candidates who failed weren't failing on hard problems. They were failing on fundamentals.
"Can you explain how closures work in JavaScript?" → Blank stares
"Debug this simple API endpoint that's returning 500 errors." → Can't figure it out
"Write a function to filter and transform this array." → Copy-pastes from memory, can't adapt it
These weren't trick questions. These were baseline skills any engineer should have.
Why? Because resumes lie, and phone screens don't test real skill.
2. Interview Cycles Took 2-3 Months on Average
From opening a role to making an offer, ScaleReal was averaging ~3 months per hire.
Here's why:
Week 1-2: Post the role, screen resumes, do phone screens
Week 3-5: Schedule and conduct 10-15 technical interviews, watch most fail
Week 6-7: Find 1-2 promising candidates, do final rounds
Week 8: Make offer, negotiate, hopefully close
Two months of work to fill one role. And if the candidate rejected the offer or didn't work out in the first few months? Start over.
For an SME hiring 8-10 people per year, that's basically continuous hiring. There was never a moment where they weren't in the middle of some interview process.
The hiring never stopped. And it was exhausting.
3. No Reliable Way to Check for Fundamentals Before Interviews
The core problem was simple: ScaleReal had no way to know if someone could code before investing interview time.
Resumes told them nothing:
"5 years of React" could mean anything from "built production apps at scale" to "followed a tutorial once"
"Experience with Node.js" could mean "architected microservices" or "installed Express and wrote Hello World"
Phone screens told them a little more, but not much:
Candidates could sound smart talking about concepts without actually understanding them
Charismatic people passed phone screens, then failed technical rounds
Quiet, introverted engineers who could ship got filtered out early
Internal coding tests helped somewhat, but they weren't reliable:
Candidates Googled answers during take-home assessments
The tests were too easy (everyone passed) or too hard (everyone failed)
Maintaining and updating tests took engineering time they didn't have
By the time ScaleReal brought someone in for a technical interview, they were still guessing. And 70% of the time, they guessed wrong.
4. Engineering Team Burnout from Endless Interviewing
12 interviews per week across the team meant every senior engineer was spending significant time interviewing instead of building.
The irony was painful: they were hiring to increase engineering capacity, but the hiring process was destroying their existing capacity.
How Utkrusht's Platform Helped
ScaleReal's tried Utkrusht's platform that evaluated candidates for real technical skills before any human time was invested.
Here's what changed: instead of hoping candidates could code and finding out in the interview, they got objective proof of skill upfront—before scheduling a single technical interview.
The Difference:
1. Technical Assessments That Actually Tests Fundamentals
Most companies skip assessments or use the wrong ones:
No assessment → Everyone gets interviewed, 70% fail
Generic coding tests → Easy to Google, don't test real skill
Whiteboard interviews → Theater, not execution
Utkrusht's assessments are different: they test whether you can build and debug real things, not whether you've memorized syntax.
For a React developer:
"This component has a bug causing infinite re-renders. Debug and fix it."
"Build a form with validation that handles edge cases correctly."
"Refactor this component to be more performant and maintainable."
For a backend engineer:
"This API is returning incorrect data. Debug the issue and fix it."
"Optimize this slow database query without changing the schema."
"Design an endpoint that handles concurrent requests safely."
For a DevOps engineer:
"This deployment pipeline is failing. Fix it and optimize for cost."
"Debug why this Kubernetes pod keeps crashing."
"Set up monitoring and alerting for this service."
ScaleReal plugged Utkrusht assessments into their hiring process as the first technical filter. Before any engineer on their team spent time interviewing a candidate, that candidate had to prove they could code.
2. Task Simulations in Sandbox Environments—No Code Pairing Required
Here's one of the biggest bottlenecks in technical hiring: live coding interviews require an engineer to pair with the candidate.
This means:
Scheduling conflicts (finding time for both people)
Context switching (engineer stops their work to interview)
Inconsistent evaluation (different interviewers have different standards)
Utkrusht solved this with task simulations in live sandbox coding environments:
Candidates get a real coding environment (not a whiteboard or pseudocode)
They complete practical tasks like debugging, building features, or refactoring code
Everything runs in the browser—no setup, no dependencies, no "it works on my machine"
The platform records their work (code, process, decisions) for review
No engineer needs to be present during the assessment
For ScaleReal, this was game-changing. They could assess 10 candidates' technical skills in the time it used to take to interview 2.
And the quality of the assessment was better:
Candidates worked in real coding environments (not whiteboards)
They had to actually build and debug (not just talk about building)
The assessment was standardized (every candidate got the same challenges)
Engineers could review results asynchronously (no live scheduling required)
3. Cover Video Submissions also Evaluates for Soft Skills
Technical skill isn't everything. You also need to know:
Can they communicate clearly?
Do they have the personality to work well with the team?
Do they align with the vision and culture of the company?
Are they articulate and thoughtful, or do they struggle to explain their thinking?
Most companies assess this in phone screens or live interviews. But those are expensive and inconsistent.
Utkrusht had a better solution: cover video submissions.
Candidates recorded short videos introducing themselves and explaining their background. ScaleReal could watch these videos in 5 minutes and immediately assess:
This replaced the need for early-stage phone screens. The result? They only spent time on live calls with candidates who had:
✅ Proven technical depth and proof-of-skill (passed assessments)
✅ Good communication skills (cover video showed it)
✅ High intent and fit (video demonstrated enthusiasm and alignment)
4. Question Depth Built by Ex-Google, Ex-Microsoft Engineers
One of the reasons ScaleReal trusted Utkrusht's assessments was simple: the questions were built by people who'd hired at the highest level.
When ex-engineering leaders from Google, Microsoft, and other top tech companies design assessment questions, they know:
What separates good engineers from great ones
What fundamentals actually matter vs. what's just trivia
How to test real-world problem-solving, not just memorization
What signals predict success in the role
ScaleReal's internal tests were fine, but they were built by engineers who were learning how to hire as they went. Utkrusht's assessments were built by people who'd hired hundreds of engineers and knew exactly what to look for.
The depth of the questions was immediately obvious:
Not "What does
map()do?" but "Refactor this code usingmap()and handle these edge cases."Not "Explain REST APIs" but "This API is returning errors—debug and fix it."
Not "What's a closure?" but "This code has a closure-related bug—find and fix it."
5. Comprehensive Reports That Build Confidence
After candidates completed assessments, ScaleReal received detailed reports showing:
📊 Technical Performance:
Overall skill score (objective measure across all assessments)
Breakdown by skill area (fundamentals, problem-solving, code quality, debugging)
Performance on specific questions (what they got right, where they struggled)
🎯 Behavioral Signals:
Cover video review (communication, personality, presentation)
Intent to join (how motivated they are to switch)
Cultural fit indicators (self-starters, high agency, collaboration skills)
💡 Recommendation:
Clear signal on whether to interview this candidate or not
Context on what to focus on in the interview (strengths to leverage, gaps to probe)
These reports gave ScaleReal something they'd never had before: confidence that candidates could code before investing interview time.
When they saw a high score + strong cover video + good behavioral signals, they knew the interview would be productive. They weren't guessing anymore—they had data.
The Process:
Candidates apply through ScaleReal's normal channels (job boards, referrals, agencies).
ScaleReal uses Utkrusht's platform and sends all candidates the assessment link. (simple 30min assessments)
Candidates complete assessments in sandbox environments—building features, debugging code, solving real problems—no code pairing needed.
Candidates record and submit cover videos introducing themselves and explaining their background.
ScaleReal receives comprehensive reports with skill scores, assessment breakdowns, and cover video reviews.
ScaleReal only interviews candidates who've proven they can code—focusing the interview on culture fit, team alignment, and deeper technical discussions.
Result: ~70% time cut in wasted interviews.
"We were doing 12 technical interviews every week, and 70% of candidates couldn't answer basic fundamentals questions. It wasn't just frustrating—it was unsustainable. Our senior engineers were spending more time interviewing unqualified candidates than actually building product. We needed a filter that worked before we burned out the team."
— Atul Shashikumar, CEO, ScaleReal
The Results
ScaleReal now only invests time in candidates who've already proven they can code strongly.
Interview load went down from ~12/week to just ~4/week interviewing high-calibre candidates only
Interviews are about culture fit, team alignment, and deeper technical exploration
100% of interviews are with candidates who've proven they can code
Engineers look forward to interviews because they're talking to qualified people
Time to Hire: 3 Months Down to ~2 Weeks
By front-loading technical assessment, ScaleReal compressed their hiring timeline dramatically.
Old process (~3 months):
Week 1-2: Post, screen resumes, phone screens
Week 3-5: 10-15 technical interviews, 70% fail
Week 6-7: Final rounds with the 30% who passed
Week 8-12: Offer, negotiate, close
New process (~3-4 weeks):
Week 1: Post a job, use Utkrusht's platform, send the assessment link to all candidates
Week 2: Review assessment reports, watch cover videos, select top candidates
Week 3: 4-5 high-quality technical interviews (all pass fundamentals), offer, close
That's 50% faster time-to-hire.
Hire Quality: All Hires Meet the Technical Bar
Here's the metric that matters most: Are the people they're hiring actually good?
With Utkrusht's assessments, ScaleReal is confident every hire they make has:
✅ Strong technical fundamentals (proven in assessments)
✅ Real execution ability (demonstrated by building/debugging in sandbox environments)
✅ Good communication skills (validated in cover videos)
✅ High intent to join (signaled through the process)
What Stood Out Most
What stood out to them the most: the depth of Utkrusht's technical questions and the real task simulations that eliminated the need for live code pairing.
Question Depth Built by Ex-Google, Ex-Microsoft Engineers
Most technical assessments are garbage. They test trivia, syntax, or abstract puzzles that have nothing to do with real engineering work.
Examples of bad technical questions:
"What's the difference between
==and===in JavaScript?" (Who cares? Everyone Googles this.)"Reverse a linked list on a whiteboard." (When was the last time you reversed a linked list at work?)
"Explain the virtual DOM." (This tests memorization, not skill.)
These questions don't reveal whether someone can actually build software. They reveal whether someone studied for the interview.
Utkrusht's assessments are different because they're built by people who've hired hundreds of engineers at companies like Google and Microsoft.
These are people who know:
What fundamentals actually matter (vs. what's just noise)
What separates engineers who ship from engineers who just talk
How to test real-world problem-solving (not just abstract algorithms)
What signals predict success in the role (vs. what sounds impressive but doesn't matter)
The result? Assessment questions that test applied skill, not memorized knowledge.
These questions don't just test if you know React, Node.js, or Python. They test if you can think like an engineer and solve real problems.
Task Simulations in Sandbox Environments—No Code Pairing Needed
The second thing that stood out was how Utkrusht eliminated the need for live code pairing.
Traditional technical interviews require an engineer to pair with the candidate:
Schedule a time that works for both people
Spend 60-90 minutes watching them code
Provide hints and guidance when they get stuck
Evaluate their performance subjectively after the call
This approach has problems:
Scheduling bottleneck: Finding time for both people is hard
Context switching: The engineer has to stop their work to interview
Inconsistent evaluation: Different interviewers have different standards
Time-consuming: You can only assess one candidate at a time
Utkrusht's task simulations solved all of this:
✅ Candidates work in real sandbox coding environments—not whiteboards, not pseudocode, actual browsers with real code editors, terminals, and live previews.
✅ They complete practical tasks—debug a React component, fix a backend API, optimize a database query, refactor messy code.
✅ Everything runs in the browser—no setup required, no "it works on my machine" excuses, no dependency hell.
✅ No engineer needs to be present—candidates complete assessments on their own time, their work is recorded, engineers review results asynchronously.
✅ Standardized evaluation—every candidate gets the same challenges, performance is measured objectively, no interviewer bias.
For ScaleReal, they could assess 10 candidates' technical skills in the time it used to take to interview 2.
And the quality of assessment was better:
Candidates had to actually build and debug (not just talk about it)
The tasks were realistic (not abstract whiteboard puzzles)
The environment was standardized (everyone had the same tools)
Engineers could review results on their schedule (no live pairing required)
This is what modern technical assessment should look like. Not 90-minute Zoom calls where candidates panic-code on a whiteboard.
Why This Matters for Custom Software Dev Shops Hiring Multiple Roles
When you're a small company hiring 8-10 people per year across multiple roles (frontend, backend, DevOps, full-stack), you can't afford to waste time on bad interviews.
You don't have:
A massive recruiting team to screen candidates
Unlimited engineering bandwidth for interviews
The luxury of taking 2 months per hire
Our platform plugged into their existing process, worked across all their technical roles, and gave them objective proof of skill before any engineer spent time interviewing.
Why ScaleReal Chose Utkrusht Over Others
ScaleReal had tried building their own assessments, using generic coding test platforms, and relying on manual interviews. So why did Utkrusht work when everything else failed?
1. Assessments That Integrates Into Existing Process
ScaleReal didn't need to rebuild their entire hiring workflow. Utkrusht plugged in as an assessment layer between initial screening and technical interviews.
Their new process:
Post the role and screen resumes (same as before)
Send qualified candidates to Utkrusht for assessment (new step)
Review assessment reports and cover videos (new step)
Interview only candidates who've proven they can code (same step, but better candidates)
2. Question Depth Built by Ex-Googlers and Ex-Microsoft Engineers
Utkrusht's questions were built by people who'd hired at the highest level. They knew what mattered and what didn't. The depth was immediately obvious.
For ScaleReal, this translated to trust: they trusted Utkrusht's questions to differentiate good candidates from bad candidates.
That trust is what allowed them to move faster. They didn't need to second-guess assessment results or run their own tests to validate—the questions were rigorous enough to rely on.
3. Task Simulations in Real Sandbox Environments
The platform gives candidates real coding environments where they had to build, debug, and refactor actual code. This wasn't theoretical. It wasn't whiteboard coding. It was as close to real engineering work as you can get in an assessment.
"We trust Utkrusht's platform to give all our candidates real-world scenario questions to differentiate between good candidates and bad candidates. The depth is far superior to what we were asking before—these aren't trivia questions, they're real problems that test fundamentals. And the task simulations in sandbox environments mean we don't need to waste engineering time on live code pairing until we're confident the person can actually ship."
What's Next
ScaleReal tech hiring now isn't just faster—it's sustainable. They're not burning out their engineering team. They're not wasting time on unqualified candidates. They're hiring good people efficiently, consistently, year after year.
For SMEs and Custom Software Development company, where every hire matters and engineering time is precious, assessment-first hiring with task simulations isn't optional—it's the only approach that works.
"We went from 12 interviews per week—most of which were wasted time—to 4 high-quality interviews where we're fully confident the candidates have strong fundamentals. Plus, the candidate reports give us everything we need to know before we invest engineering time. Now interviews are about fit and alignment, not 'can you actually code?'"
Want to hire
the best talent
with proof
of skill?
Shortlist candidates with
strong proof of skill
in just 48 hours
