Home
/
Blog
/
Tech Tutorials
/
Composing Jazz Music with Deep Learning

Composing Jazz Music with Deep Learning

Author
Shubham Gupta
Calendar Icon
May 29, 2018
Timer Icon
3 min read
Share

Explore this post with:

Deep Learning is on the rise, extending its application in every field, ranging from computer vision to natural language processing, healthcare, speech recognition, generating art, addition of sound to silent movies, machine translation, advertising, self-driving cars, etc. In this blog, we will extend the power of deep learning to the domain of music production. We will talk about how we can use deep learning to generate new musical beats.

The current technological advancements have transformed the way we produce music, listen, and work with music. With the advent of deep learning, it has now become possible to generate music without the need for working with instruments artists may not have had access to or the skills to use previously. This offers artists more creative freedom and ability to explore different domains of music.

Recurrent Neural Networks

Since music is a sequence of notes and chords, it doesn’t have a fixed dimensionality. Traditional deep neural network techniques cannot be applied to generate music as they assume the inputs and targets/outputs to have fixed dimensionality and outputs to be independent of each other. It is therefore clear that a domain-independent method that learns to map sequences to sequences would be useful.

Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) are a class of artificial neural networks that make use of sequential information present in the data.

recurrent neural network, deep learning, character based learning,
Fig. 1 A basic RNN unit.

A recurrent neural network has looped, or recurrent, connections which allow the network to hold information across inputs. These connections can be thought of as memory cells. In other words, RNNs can make use of information learned in the previous time step. As seen in Fig. 1, the output of the previous hidden/activation layer is fed into the next hidden layer. Such an architecture is efficient in learning sequence-based data.

In this blog, we will be using the Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) architecture. LSTM is a type of recurrent neural network (proposed by Hochreiter and Schmidhuber, 1997) that can remember a piece of information and keep it saved for many timesteps.

Dataset

Our dataset includes piano tunes stored in the MIDI format. MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) is a protocol which allows electronic instruments and other digital musical tools to communicate with each other. Since a MIDI file only represents player information, i.e., a series of messages like ‘note on’, ‘note off, it is more compact, easy to modify, and can be adapted to any instrument.

Before we move forward, let us understand some music related terminologies:

  • Note: A note is either a single sound or its representation in notation. Each note consist of pitch, octave, and an offset.
  • Pitch: Pitch refers to the frequency of the sound.
  • Octave: An octave is the interval between one musical pitch and another with half or double its frequency.
  • Offset: Refers to the location of the note.
  • Chord: Playing multiple notes at the same time constitutes a chord.

Data Preprocessing

We will use the music21 toolkit (a toolkit for computer-aided musicology, MIT) to extract data from these MIDI files.

  1. Notes Extraction

     def get_notes():  
         notes = []  
         for file in songs:  
           # converting .mid file to stream object  
           midi = converter.parse(file)  
           notes_to_parse = []  
           try:  
             # Given a single stream, partition into a part for each unique instrument  
             parts = instrument.partitionByInstrument(midi)  
           except:  
             pass  
           if parts: # if parts has instrument parts   
             notes_to_parse = parts.parts[0].recurse()  
           else:  
             notes_to_parse = midi.flat.notes  
           for element in notes_to_parse:   
             if isinstance(element, note.Note):  
               # if element is a note, extract pitch   
               notes.append(str(element.pitch))  
             elif(isinstance(element, chord.Chord)):  
               # if element is a chord, append the normal form of the   
               # chord (a list of integers) to the list of notes.   
               notes.append('.'.join(str(n) for n in element.normalOrder))  
         with open('data/notes', 'wb') as filepath:  
           pickle.dump(notes, filepath)  
         return notes  
      

    The function get_notes returns a list of notes and chords present in the .mid file. We use the converter.parse function to convert the midi file in a stream object, which in turn is used to extract notes and chords present in the file. The list returned by the function get_notes() looks as follows:

     Out:  
         ['F2', '4.5.7', '9.0', 'C3', '5.7.9', '7.0', 'E4', '4.5.8', '4.8', '4.8', '4', 'G#3',  
         'D4', 'G#3', 'C4', '4', 'B3', 'A2', 'E3', 'A3', '0.4', 'D4', '7.11', 'E3', '0.4.7', 'B4', 'C3', 'G3', 'C4', '4.7', '11.2', 'C3', 'C4', '11.2.4', 'G4', 'F2', 'C3', '0.5', '9.0', '4.7', 'F2', '4.5.7.9.0', '4.8', 'F4', '4', '4.8', '2.4', 'G#3',  
        '8.0', 'E2', 'E3', 'B3', 'A2', '4.9', '0.4', '7.11', 'A2', '9.0.4', ...........]  

    We can see that the list consists of pitches and chords (represented as a list of integers separated by a dot). We assume each new chord to be a new pitch on the list. As letters are used to generate words in a sentence, similarly the music vocabulary used to generate music is defined by the unique pitches in the notes list.

  2. Generating Input and Output Sequences

    A neural network accepts only real values as input and since the pitches in the notes list are in string format, we need to map each pitch in the notes list to an integer. We can do so as follows:

     # Extract the unique pitches in the list of notes.   
       pitchnames = sorted(set(item for item in notes))  
       # create a dictionary to map pitches to integers  
       note_to_int = dict((note, number) for number, note in enumerate(pitchnames))  
      

    Next, we will create an array of input and output sequences to train our model. Each input sequence will consist of 100 notes, while the output array stores the 101st note for the corresponding input sequence. So, the objective of the model will be to predict the 101st note of the input sequence of notes.

     # create input sequences and the corresponding outputs  
       for i in range(0, len(notes) - sequence_length, 1):  
         sequence_in = notes[i: i + sequence_length]  
         sequence_out = notes[i + sequence_length]  
         network_input.append([note_to_int[char] for char in sequence_in])  
         network_output.append(note_to_int[sequence_out])  
      

    Next, we reshape and normalize the input vector sequence before feeding it to the model. Finally, we one-hot encode our output vector.

     n_patterns = len(network_input)  
       # reshape the input into a format compatible with LSTM layers   
       network_input = np.reshape(network_input, (n_patterns, sequence_length, 1))  
       # normalize input  
       network_input = network_input / float(n_vocab)  
       # One hot encode the output vector  
       network_output = np_utils.to_categorical(network_output)  
      

Model Architecture

Machine learning challenge, ML challenge

We will use keras to build our model architecture. We use a character level-based architecture to train the model. So each input note in the music file is used to predict the next note in the file, i.e., each LSTM cell takes the previous layer activation (a⟨t−1⟩) and the previous layers actual output (y⟨t−1⟩) as input at the current time step tt. This is depicted in the following figure (Fig 2.).

LSTM, Long term short architecture, Recurrent neural network, music generation, neural network,
Fig 2. One to Many LSTM architecture

Our model architecture is defined as:

 model = Sequential()  
   model.add(LSTM(128, input_shape=network_in.shape[1:], return_sequences=True))  
   model.add(Dropout(0.2))  
   model.add(LSTM(128, return_sequences=True))  
   model.add(Flatten())  
   model.add(Dense(256))  
   model.add(Dropout(0.3))  
   model.add(Dense(n_vocab))  
   model.add(Activation('softmax'))  
   model.compile(loss='categorical_crossentropy', optimizer='adam')  
  

Our music model consists of two LSTM layers with each layer consisting of 128 hidden layers. We use ‘categorical cross entropy‘ as the loss function and ‘adam‘ as the optimizer. Fig. 3 shows the model summary.

LSTM, Long short term memory, model architecture, music generation, rnn, recurrent neural netowrk
Fig 3. Model summary

Model Training

To train the model, we call the model.fit function with the input and output sequences as the input to the function. We also create a model checkpoint which saves the best model weights.

 from keras.callbacks import ModelCheckpoint  
   def train(model, network_input, network_output, epochs):   
     """  
     Train the neural network  
     """  
     filepath = 'weights.best.music3.hdf5'  
     checkpoint = ModelCheckpoint(filepath, monitor='loss', verbose=0, save_best_only=True)  
     model.fit(network_input, network_output, epochs=epochs, batch_size=32, callbacks=[checkpoint])  
   def train_network():  
     epochs = 200  
     notes = get_notes()  
     print('Notes processed')  
     n_vocab = len(set(notes))  
     print('Vocab generated')  
     network_in, network_out = prepare_sequences(notes, n_vocab)  
     print('Input and Output processed')  
     model = create_network(network_in, n_vocab)  
     print('Model created')  
     return model  
     print('Training in progress')  
     train(model, network_in, network_out, epochs)  
     print('Training completed')  
  

The train_network method gets the notes, creates the input and output sequences, creates a model, and trains the model for 200 epochs.

Music Sample Generation

Now that we have trained our model, we can use it to generate some new notes. To generate new notes, we need a starting note. So, we randomly pick an integer and pick a random sequence from the input sequence as a starting point.

 def generate_notes(model, network_input, pitchnames, n_vocab):  
     """ Generate notes from the neural network based on a sequence of notes """  
     # Pick a random integer  
     start = np.random.randint(0, len(network_input)-1)  
     int_to_note = dict((number, note) for number, note in enumerate(pitchnames))  
     # pick a random sequence from the input as a starting point for the prediction  
     pattern = network_input[start]  
     prediction_output = []  
     print('Generating notes........')  
     # generate 500 notes  
     for note_index in range(500):  
       prediction_input = np.reshape(pattern, (1, len(pattern), 1))  
       prediction_input = prediction_input / float(n_vocab)  
       prediction = model.predict(prediction_input, verbose=0)  
       # Predicted output is the argmax(P(h|D))  
       index = np.argmax(prediction)  
       # Mapping the predicted interger back to the corresponding note  
       result = int_to_note[index]  
       # Storing the predicted output  
       prediction_output.append(result)  
       pattern.append(index)  
       # Next input to the model  
       pattern = pattern[1:len(pattern)]  
     print('Notes Generated...')  
     return prediction_output  
  

Next, we use the trained model to predict the next 500 notes. At each time step, the output of the previous layer (ŷ⟨t−1⟩) is provided as input (x⟨t⟩) to the LSTM layer at the current time step t. This is depicted in the following figure (see Fig. 4).

sampling, sampling from rnn, LSTM, architecture, music sampling, music generation
Fig 4. Sampling from a trained network.

Since the predicted output is an array of probabilities, we choose the output at the index with the maximum probability. Finally, we map this index to the actual note and add this to the list of predicted output. Since the predicted output is a list of strings of notes and chords, we cannot play it. Hence, we encode the predicted output into the MIDI format using the create_midi method.

 ### Converts the predicted output to midi format  
   create_midi(prediction_output)  
  

To create some new jazz music, you can simply call the generate() method, which calls all the related methods and saves the predicted output as a MIDI file.

 #### Generate a new jazz music   
   generate()  
   Out:   
     Initiating music generation process.......  
     Loading Model weights.....  
     Model Loaded  
     Generating notes........  
     Notes Generated...  
     Saving Output file as midi....  
  

To play the generated MIDI in the Jupyter Notebook you can import the play_midi method from the play.py file or use an external MIDI player or convert the MIDI file to the mp3. Let’s listen to our generated jazz piano music.

 ### Play the Jazz music  
   play.play_midi('test_output3.mid')  
“Generated Track 1” Deep Learning Recurrent Neural Network
Audio Player

Conclusion

Congratulations! You can now generate your own jazz music. You can find the full code in this Github repository. I encourage you to play with the parameters of the model and train the model with input sequences of different sequence lengths. Try to implement the code for some other instrument (such as guitar). Furthermore, such a character-based model can also be applied to a text corpus to generate sample texts, such as a poem.

Also, you can showcase your own personal composer and any similar idea in the World Music Hackathonby HackerEarth.

Have anything to say? Feel free to comment below for any questions, suggestions, and discussions related to this article. Till then, happy coding.

Subscribe to The HackerEarth Blog

Get expert tips, hacks, and how-tos from the world of tech recruiting to stay on top of your hiring!

Author
Shubham Gupta
Calendar Icon
May 29, 2018
Timer Icon
3 min read
Share

Hire top tech talent with our recruitment platform

Access Free Demo
Related reads

Discover more articles

Gain insights to optimize your developer recruitment process.

Technical Skills Assessment for Hiring | HackerEarth

10 best technical screening services to evaluate developer skills in 2026

Technical screening services are platforms that evaluate candidates' programming, debugging, and system design skills through standardized or customizable tests — before recruiters or engineers commit time to interviews. For teams hiring developers at any volume, these technical screening services have become the filter between an applicant pool and an interview calendar, replacing resume-based guesswork with measurable signal.

A bad technical hire costs at least 30% of that employee's first-year salary, according to a frequently cited U.S. Department of Labor figure, and that number assumes a clean exit. For senior engineering roles, the real damage — in team disruption, re-hiring time, and lost momentum — runs considerably higher. The problem is not just that bad hires happen. It is that most hiring processes are built on signals that do not actually predict whether someone can write code: resumes measure career history, unstructured interviews measure how well people interview.

This guide covers 10 technical screening services evaluated on assessment depth, AI capabilities, proctoring, candidate experience, ATS integrations, and pricing — for recruiters and hiring managers who want faster, more defensible technical hiring decisions.

What are technical screening services?

The simplest way to think about technical screening services is as the filter between your applicant pool and your interview calendar. Also called developer screening services, technical evaluation services, or programming assessment tools, these platforms evaluate candidates' programming, system design, and debugging skills through standardized or customizable tests — online coding tests for hiring, project-based tasks, live collaborative sessions, or AI-scored async video interviews — before any recruiter or engineer has to get on a call.

The distinction from generic pre-employment testing matters: a personality test will not tell you whether a candidate can debug a memory leak, and a cognitive assessment will not tell you whether they can design a REST API. Technical screening services are built specifically for code.

How we evaluated these technical screening platforms

Each platform in this list was evaluated both as a developer assessment software solution and as a technical screening service, across eight criteria:

  • Assessment library depth and customization
  • AI and automation features
  • Anti-cheating and proctoring capabilities
  • Candidate experience and interface quality
  • ATS and HRIS integrations
  • Pricing model transparency
  • Scalability for enterprise vs. SMB
  • Reporting and analytics
Platform Best For Key Assessment Types AI Features Integrations Free Trial
HackerEarth Enterprise developer hiring at scale Coding, MCQ, system design, live coding AI assessment generation, AI-driven async interviews (OnScreen); proctoring available separately Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, iCIMS Contact vendor
HackerRank Enterprise with dedicated tech recruiting Coding, take-home, CodePair live AI plagiarism detection, AI interviewer Greenhouse, Lever, Workday Yes (14-day)
Codility Task-based algorithmic screening CodeCheck, CodeLive, algorithmic tasks AI-assisted engineering assessment Greenhouse, Lever, custom API Yes
CodeSignal Standardized benchmark scoring Certified assessments, IDE-based coding AI scoring engine, question leak mitigation Greenhouse, Lever, Workday Yes
CoderPad Live pair programming interviews Live coding, take-home, 30+ languages Limited AI features Greenhouse, Lever, iCIMS Free plan
TestGorilla Broad pre-employment tech + non-tech Coding, cognitive, personality, video Anti-cheating, video responses Greenhouse, Lever, Workday Yes
iMocha Hiring + internal upskilling combined 3,000+ skill tests, AI-LogicBox coding AI skills inference, talent analytics Greenhouse, Workday Free plan
Coderbyte Startups and SMBs, junior to mid-level 300+ coding challenges, custom tests Basic plagiarism detection Limited Yes (14-day)
DevSkiller Project-based realistic work simulation Project tasks, auto-scoring, tech-specific Automated scoring Greenhouse, Lever, ATS API Yes
Vervoe AI auto-ranking, reduced manual review Tasks, simulations, custom, video responses AI auto-grading, AI candidate ranking Greenhouse, Lever Yes

1. HackerEarth

Overview

HackerEarth is worth considering when you want async screening and live interviews in one place rather than running two separate products for the same hiring pipeline. Trusted by 500+ global enterprises including Google, Microsoft, Elastic, Flipkart, and Brillio, it covers the full developer screening workflow without requiring coordination between tools.

Key features

The assessment library spans 1,000+ skills across 40+ programming languages, which means a developer skills assessment for almost any role type — front-end, back-end, DevOps, data science, machine learning — can be built without writing questions from scratch. Hiring teams can pull from the library or use AI-powered assessment generation, which uses a job description as input to draft questions matched to the role; the output is editable, and human review is recommended before deployment. HackerEarth's technical assessment platform handles multiple-choice questions and open-ended coding challenges in the same session.

FaceCode, HackerEarth's live coding interview product, gives interviewers a collaborative coding environment with real-time evaluation; for a deeper review of live coding interview platforms compared, HackerEarth maintains a category overview. OnScreen, HackerEarth's AI-driven async interview product launched in April 2026, runs first-round screens on the candidate's own schedule, removing the scheduling step that typically extends time-to-hire at volume. OnScreen scores responses against rubric criteria; final hiring decisions remain with the human reviewer. Proctoring runs image, audio, and video monitoring simultaneously with full session replay. Native ATS integrations include Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, and iCIMS.

Best for

Mid-market to enterprise teams running simultaneous developer hiring across multiple roles who need async screening and live interviews from a single platform.

Limitation

Smaller teams with low hiring volume and no need for live coding interviews will not use enough of the feature set to justify the full-tier pricing.

Pricing

Custom pricing based on volume; contact vendor for current trial terms.

2. HackerRank

Overview

HackerRank is one of the most widely recognized names in the category. The company has publicly cited more than 2,500 enterprise customers, and its brand recognition on the candidate side is a real recruiting advantage — developers tend to take assessments more seriously on platforms they have already used to practice.

Key features

The platform covers coding challenges, take-home projects, and CodePair live interviews in one product. Its AI stack includes keystroke analysis, LLM-generated answer detection, and Proctor Mode with session replay. Publicly listed pricing (as of late 2025) starts at $165 per month for Starter ($1,990 annually) and $375 per month for Pro ($4,490 annually); verify current pricing with the vendor.

Best for

Enterprise teams with dedicated technical recruiting functions that need a high-volume platform with mature AI integrity features and strong developer-community reputation.

Limitation

Pricing escalates quickly at higher candidate volumes, and the platform carries a steeper recruiter learning curve than newer tools.

3. Codility

Overview

Codility suits teams that want rigorous task-based assessment and do not mind that the platform has a narrower scope than full-stack hiring tools. It has been listed on G2 among leading technical skills screening platforms in Europe (rankings update regularly; verify current standing on G2).

Key features

CodeCheck handles automated pre-built coding assessments, CodeLive supports real-time interviews, and the COMPASS benchmark evaluates AI-generated code on correctness, efficiency, and quality — one of the first platforms to directly assess how candidates work alongside AI tools. Codility's published pricing starts at approximately $100 per month for low volume (verify current rates with vendor).

Best for

Companies prioritizing task-based code-quality assessment over MCQ formats, particularly where real-world engineering complexity is the deciding signal.

Limitation

Language coverage is narrower than the broadest platforms in this list, and async interview capabilities lag purpose-built async tools.

4. CodeSignal

Overview

CodeSignal suits teams that need a scoring framework that will hold up to scrutiny — its Certified Assessments are described by the company as backed by extensive research and provide independently validated benchmarks that make candidate comparisons defensible over time (verify current research-hour figures with the vendor).

Key features

The full IDE-style environment mirrors actual development conditions. An AI scoring engine flags efficiency and code quality beyond just correctness. A proactive question leak mitigation system retires and rotates questions continuously, which is a meaningful integrity advantage at enterprise scale. Custom enterprise pricing required.

Best for

Organizations where standardized scoring benchmarks and legal defensibility are priorities, particularly for large candidate pipelines compared across multiple hiring cycles.

Limitation

Assessment customization is more constrained than open-ended platforms.

5. CoderPad

Overview

CoderPad is a live interview tool used by thousands of organizations including Netflix, Shopify, and Databricks per CoderPad's marketing, with a reputation for interviewer-friendly UX — which matters because a poor interview interface creates friction for both sides.

Key features

The environment supports 30+ programming languages with real-time execution, a drawing tool for architecture discussions, and session playback so interviewers can review candidate reasoning afterward. Take-home projects extend it to async formats. CoderPad's published pricing lists a Starter plan at $100 per month for five tests (verify current pricing with vendor).

Best for

Teams where live coding interview quality is the primary investment and candidate experience during the interview is a genuine recruiting differentiator.

Limitation

CoderPad does not replace a pre-screening platform — most teams using it still need a separate tool for top-of-funnel filtering.

6. TestGorilla

Overview

TestGorilla is a generalist option when technical skills are one ingredient in the evaluation rather than the whole recipe — it handles coding alongside cognitive, personality, and culture-fit assessment in one session.

Key features

The library covers 400+ assessments spanning coding challenges, cognitive ability, personality profiles, culture-fit tests, and video responses. Anti-cheating includes webcam monitoring and IP tracking. Pricing is publicly listed and starts at a functional free tier.

Best for

Companies screening for both technical and non-technical competencies simultaneously, where a broad combined signal is more useful than deep technical depth.

Limitation

For senior or specialized engineering roles requiring advanced DSA, system design, or DevOps evaluation, TestGorilla's technical depth is lighter than purpose-built developer screening platforms.

7. iMocha

Overview

iMocha is worth considering when your organization wants hiring assessment data and internal development data living in the same place — one skills layer rather than two separate tools with incompatible reports.

Key features

The platform offers more than 3,000 skill tests including the AI-LogicBox coding engine. Talent analytics dashboards compare candidates against both internal competency frameworks and external benchmarks. Assessment data can feed directly into learning management systems. Integrations include Greenhouse and Workday.

Best for

Organizations combining external technical hiring with internal skills-gap analysis, where a unified skills intelligence layer across both use cases is the goal.

Limitation

The interface feels less modern than newer entrants, and the workflow leans toward HR generalists rather than developer hiring specialists.

8. Coderbyte

Overview

Coderbyte is a practical starting point for startups that need to filter developer candidates without committing to enterprise pricing — it does the basics well at a price point smaller teams can absorb.

Key features

The library includes 300+ coding challenges, custom assessment creation, and plagiarism detection. According to Coderbyte's published pricing (as of late 2025), pay-as-you-go runs approximately $10 per candidate and the monthly plan starts at $199 (verify current rates with vendor). Starter templates for common roles reduce setup time.

Best for

Startups and SMBs hiring junior to mid-level developers on a budget, where basic automated screening and manageable candidate experience are the priorities.

Limitation

Advanced proctoring, AI-driven analytics, and deep ATS integrations are absent. Growing teams tend to outgrow Coderbyte faster than they anticipate.

9. DevSkiller (now part of TalentBoost)

Overview

DevSkiller's RealLifeTesting methodology is genuinely different from the rest of this list: candidates work on project-style tasks that simulate actual job work rather than abstract algorithm challenges, which changes what the assessment is measuring.

Key features

Project-based assessments cover database work, API development, and front-end implementation with auto-scoring and detailed technical breakdowns by skill area. Tasks are mapped to specific technologies and frameworks. ATS integrations include Greenhouse, Lever, and a custom API.

Best for

Companies that want candidates to demonstrate they can do the work rather than solve a puzzle, particularly for full-stack or domain-specific roles where contextual problem-solving matters more than algorithmic speed.

Limitation

The question library is smaller than category leaders, high-volume first-round screening is not the platform's strength, and the TalentBoost acquisition makes roadmap visibility harder to gauge.

10. Vervoe

Overview

Vervoe automates the part of screening that burns the most recruiter time: the initial review pass, where someone has to look at every submission and decide what to do with it.

Key features

AI auto-grading scores text, code, and video responses. An AI ranking engine surfaces the highest-predicted-fit candidates for human review. Immersive task simulations present realistic job scenarios rather than abstract tests. Customizable branding supports an on-brand candidate experience. ATS integrations include Greenhouse and Lever.

Best for

Teams where reducing manual review time is the primary goal and AI-driven candidate shortlisting is the preferred workflow.

Limitation

Technical depth for developer-specific roles is lighter than purpose-built coding platforms, and live coding capabilities are minimal.

How to choose the right technical screening service

Picking the wrong technical screening service is easy when you are evaluating by feature count. The more useful question is what your actual hiring pipeline looks like.

Define your hiring volume and roles

Volume is the first filter. High-volume pipelines need automation, async capabilities, and ATS integration that does not create more work than it saves. Lower-volume teams usually benefit more from assessment quality and interview environment than throughput features.

Prioritize assessment depth vs. breadth

For dedicated technical roles, a platform with deep language support and project-based tasks will produce better signal than a generalist tool. If you need technical and soft-skill evaluation in the same session, TestGorilla or iMocha handle that combination more effectively than pure developer screening platforms.

Evaluate candidate experience

The candidates most likely to abandon a poorly designed or overlong assessment are usually the candidates with the most options. HackerEarth's guidance on how to improve the candidate experience covers how to reduce drop-off at each funnel stage without sacrificing screening rigor.

Check integration compatibility

A screening tool that does not connect with your ATS turns time savings into manual data entry. Confirm the integration is tested and working, not just listed on the feature page.

Consider async vs. live screening needs

For teams new to technical pre-screening, starting with code screening platforms that handle top-of-funnel filtering before investing in live interview infrastructure is the more cost-efficient path. Some platforms — HackerEarth among them — handle both async and live in one product; CoderPad is live-focused; Vervoe is async-focused.

Review anti-cheating and proctoring features

Developer use of generative AI tools is widespread — Stack Overflow's 2024 Developer Survey reported that around 76% of developers use or plan to use AI tools in their development process. Single-method proctoring is increasingly insufficient at that level of background AI use. Look for session replay, behavioral monitoring, and AI-specific plagiarism detection. HackerEarth's guide to remote proctoring for online assessments explains how to run integrity monitoring without making candidates feel adversarially monitored.

One contested point worth naming directly: AI proctoring is useful but not a complete answer. Behavioral monitoring catches some forms of cheating but cannot reliably detect a candidate using a second device with an LLM. Teams that take integrity seriously usually pair proctoring with assessment design choices — rotating questions, project-based tasks, and live follow-up rounds — rather than treating monitoring tools as the sole control.

Developer AI Tool Adoption: Use or Plan to Use AI in Development
Source: Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2024

Key trends in technical screening services for 2026

The category is moving faster than most HR technology segments, and four shifts will shape which platform decisions hold up heading into 2026.

AI-generated adaptive assessments are becoming a baseline expectation rather than a differentiator. Hiring teams now expect to describe a role and receive a draft assessment they can review and edit. Platforms that still require fully manual question selection are falling behind on speed-to-deploy.

Async AI-driven screening is replacing the recruiter phone screen as the first filtering step. Platforms with AI-driven async interview products — HackerEarth's OnScreen is one example — let candidates complete a technical screen without a human on the other end, removing one of the most persistent scheduling bottlenecks in technical hiring pipelines. The honest caveat: async AI scoring works well for structured technical evaluation and less well for assessing communication nuance, which is why most teams still pair it with a human round.

Skills-based hiring tools that include validated technical assessments are well-positioned as degree requirements continue falling. According to LinkedIn's Workforce Report and Future of Work data, the share of U.S. paid job posts not requiring a four-year degree has risen meaningfully since 2020 — around 26% of postings, up roughly 16 percentage points over that period in LinkedIn's reporting. Remote technical screening platforms that scale efficiently become more valuable as candidate pools grow larger and credentials become less reliable as filters.

Candidate experience has become a competitive differentiator. With SHRM's reported average time-to-fill of around 44 days for technical roles, a clunky or opaque assessment is a genuine reason for strong candidates to withdraw.

Share of U.S. Job Posts Not Requiring a Four-Year Degree (2020 vs. 2024)
Source: LinkedIn Workforce Report / Future of Work data, as cited in article

Conclusion / Final verdict

The right technical screening service is the one that fits your actual pipeline, not the one with the most features on a comparison chart.

For enterprise teams needing async pre-screening, live interviews, and proctoring in a single product, HackerEarth is a strong option. For teams focused purely on live coding interview quality, CoderPad delivers an experience that is hard to match in that specific context. For organizations that need technical and non-technical evaluation in the same workflow, TestGorilla is the practical choice. Codility and CodeSignal both stand out where benchmark rigor and defensibility matter most, and DevSkiller is hard to beat on project-realistic tasks.

Schedule a demo of HackerEarth Assessments to see how async screening with OnScreen, live coding interviews with FaceCode, and AI-assisted assessment generation fit into your next hiring cycle.

Frequently asked questions

What is a technical screening service?

A technical screening service evaluates candidates' coding and engineering skills through standardized assessments or live interviews before any recruiter or engineer time is committed. It is the difference between knowing a candidate can code and hoping they can based on a resume.

How do technical screening tools reduce time-to-hire?

The mechanism is sequence, not magic: async assessments and automated scoring move the first technical filter ahead of recruiter scheduling, so candidates progress (or drop out) before a calendar invite is ever sent. The biggest practical gain for most teams is removing the back-and-forth around phone-screen scheduling, which is where days typically leak out of the pipeline.

What types of assessments do technical screening platforms offer?

Common formats include MCQs, timed coding challenges, project-based tasks, system design prompts, live pair programming, debugging exercises, take-home assignments, and AI-scored async video interviews. Most platforms now support several of these in a single session, which is worth verifying before you commit.

Are technical screening services fair?

Standardized assessments remove some of the credential and first-impression bias that dominates resume screening, giving non-traditional candidates a clearer path to demonstrate skill. They are not bias-free: poorly designed or unvalidated questions can introduce different biases (cultural references in prompts, time pressure that disadvantages certain groups, accessibility gaps in proctoring). Skills-based hiring reduces some sources of bias and surfaces others — picking a platform with a maintained, job-relevant question library and accessibility options matters more than most buyers realize.

How much do technical screening platforms cost?

Self-service SMB plans typically run $100 to $500 per month, enterprise pricing starts around $10,000 per year, and most platforms offer a free trial or limited free tier. The pricing spread is wide enough that clarifying volume needs before vendor conversations will save significant negotiation time.

Can technical screening tools integrate with my ATS?

Most major platforms integrate natively with Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, iCIMS, and SAP SuccessFactors, but "listed as an integration" and "actually tested and working" are different things. Confirm the data flows correctly in a trial before signing.

<!-- Editor notes for CMS

What Gen Z Expects From HR Leaders in 2026

What Gen Z Expects From HR Leaders in 2026

Introduction

Gen Z is entering the workforce with a very different perspective on work, leadership, and career growth.

Unlike previous generations, they are not just evaluating salary packages or job titles. They are paying closer attention to workplace culture, flexibility, transparency, learning opportunities, and overall employee experience.

For HR and Talent Acquisition leaders, this shift is changing how organizations attract, engage, and retain talent.

Having entered the workforce during a period of rapid workplace transformation, Gen Z values authenticity over polished corporate messaging and meaningful experiences over traditional corporate structures.

Employer Branding Is Now About Experience

Employer branding today is no longer defined only by career pages or company values.

Gen Z pays attention to how recruiters communicate, how transparent the hiring process feels, and how employees speak about the company publicly.

For Talent Acquisition teams, recruitment is no longer just a hiring function. It has become a reflection of workplace culture itself.

Candidates today value clear communication, transparency, honest conversations around growth, and personalized experiences throughout the hiring journey.

This is also why skill-based hiring and fair evaluation processes are becoming more important for modern organizations.

Gen Z Values Authenticity

One of the biggest shifts HR leaders are noticing is that Gen Z values honesty far more than polished corporate narratives.

They want realistic conversations around career growth, workplace expectations, compensation, and learning opportunities.

Interestingly, they do not expect organizations to be perfect. What they expect is transparency and authenticity.

Younger employees quickly recognize when workplace messaging feels disconnected from reality. Organizations that communicate openly tend to build stronger trust and credibility with Gen Z talent.

Career Growth Looks Different Today

Traditional career growth models were designed around long timelines and annual reviews.

But Gen Z expects growth to feel continuous.

Instead of waiting for yearly discussions, employees want faster feedback, ongoing learning, mentorship opportunities, and clear visibility into growth from the beginning of their journey.

This means career development is no longer just part of appraisal cycles. It is becoming an everyday part of the employee experience.

Organizations investing in learning, internal mobility, and skill development are more likely to keep younger employees engaged.

Flexibility Is About Trust

For Gen Z, flexibility is no longer viewed as a workplace perk.

It is an expectation.

But flexibility goes beyond remote or hybrid work. It also includes autonomy in how employees manage work and productivity.

At its core, flexibility has become a question of trust.

Gen Z values workplaces where managers focus on outcomes instead of constant visibility or monitoring. For HR leaders, this means flexibility cannot exist only in policies. It must also exist in leadership behavior and workplace culture.

Well-Being Is Part of the Work Experience

For Gen Z employees, mental well-being is not a separate HR initiative.

It is part of the everyday employee experience.

They are quick to notice the gap between organizations talking about wellness and employees actually feeling supported.

This means HR teams need to think beyond wellness campaigns and focus more on how work itself is designed and managed.

Because employees do not experience policies. They experience culture every single day.

Final Thoughts

Gen Z is not simply changing workplace expectations. They are challenging organizations to rethink how modern work should actually function.

For HR and Talent Acquisition leaders, this creates an opportunity to build more transparent, flexible, and people-focused workplaces.

The organizations that will attract and retain Gen Z talent successfully are not necessarily the ones with the loudest employer branding or trendiest benefits.

They are the ones building cultures based on trust, authenticity, flexibility, growth, and meaningful employee experiences.

Remote, Hybrid, or Office? What Actually Works and Why

Remote vs Hybrid vs Office: What Actually Works in 2026?

Introduction

Somewhere between “you’re on mute” and badge-swiping back into office buildings, work didn’t just change, it split into choices.

Remote work. Hybrid work. Office-first culture.

Policies were rewritten again and again, but one question still dominates HR and Talent Acquisition conversations:

Are organizations building work models that genuinely improve productivity, employee experience, and retention, or simply reacting to pressure from leadership, candidates, and competitors?

The truth is, there’s no universal answer.

The Myth of the Perfect Work Model

Over the last few years, companies have learned that no single workplace model works for everyone.

Organizations that embraced fully remote work gained access to wider talent pools and improved flexibility. But many also struggled with collaboration gaps, communication fatigue, and weaker cultural connection.

Meanwhile, strict return-to-office policies brought structure and in-person collaboration back, but often at the cost of employee satisfaction and retention.

Hybrid work quickly became the middle ground. Yet in practice, hybrid is often the hardest model to execute well because it demands balance, consistency, and intentional leadership.

The real question isn’t whether remote, hybrid, or office is better.

It’s: What outcome is the organization trying to optimize for?

What HR Leaders Are Seeing

HR teams across industries are noticing a shift in how people work and what employees value.

Remote hiring has dramatically expanded access to talent beyond geographical boundaries. Talent Acquisition teams can now hire specialized talent faster and from more diverse locations.

At the same time, office environments still play an important role in onboarding, mentorship, and early-career learning. Informal conversations, quick collaboration, and day-to-day exposure are still difficult to replicate virtually.

Hybrid models try to combine both advantages, but they also introduce challenges like proximity bias, where employees who spend more time in the office often receive greater visibility and growth opportunities.

This raises an important question for HR leaders:

Are workplace policies rewarding performance or simply physical presence?

What Candidates Actually Want

Candidates today are not just choosing jobs anymore. They’re choosing lifestyles.

For many professionals, remote work represents flexibility, autonomy, and better work-life balance. For others, especially younger professionals, office environments provide structure, mentorship, and stronger human connection.

What’s interesting is that candidate preferences are becoming more nuanced.

Someone may prefer remote work but still choose a hybrid role if it offers stronger career growth. Another candidate may prioritize flexibility over compensation altogether.

For Talent Acquisition teams, this changes everything.

Work models are no longer just operational policies. They’ve become part of the employer value proposition.

Culture Is More Than a Workplace

There’s a common belief that culture only exists inside offices.

But culture isn’t tied to a physical location. It’s shaped through communication, trust, leadership, and shared experiences.

Organizations that succeed with remote work usually focus on clear communication, strong documentation, and outcome-based performance management rather than constant visibility.

Meanwhile, companies succeeding with office-first models are redefining what offices are actually meant for: collaboration, creativity, and connection instead of simply showing up at a desk.

Because if employees are commuting only to spend the day on virtual meetings, the office experience loses its purpose.

What Actually Works?

The organizations getting workplace strategy right are not obsessing over whether remote, hybrid, or office is superior.

Instead, they are focusing on intentionality.

They listen closely to employee behavior and outcomes, not just survey responses. They treat work models as evolving systems instead of fixed policies. Most importantly, they align workplace strategy with business goals and employee needs simultaneously.

That’s where the real difference lies.

Final Thoughts

The future of work isn’t remote, hybrid, or office-first.

It’s intentional, adaptable, and human-centered.

The companies that understand this won’t just attract better talent, they’ll build stronger cultures, healthier teams, and more sustainable workplaces for the future.

Top Products

Explore HackerEarth’s top products for Hiring & Innovation

Discover powerful tools designed to streamline hiring, assess talent efficiently, and run seamless hackathons. Explore HackerEarth’s top products that help businesses innovate and grow.
Frame
Hackathons
Engage global developers through innovation
Arrow
Frame 2
Assessments
AI-driven advanced coding assessments
Arrow
Frame 3
FaceCode
Real-time code editor for effective coding interviews
Arrow
Frame 4
L & D
Tailored learning paths for continuous assessments
Arrow
Get A Free Demo