Code screening for the 21st century
See how candidates tackle real tasks using the tools they'd use on the job.
An estimated 50% of candidates use AI to cheat
Candidates want to use AI. Let them.
AI has never been more accessible, and it's estimated that nearly 50% of software engineering candidates use some form of AI to cheat.
Gauge how candidates work on real tasks with real tools
Nothing hurts more than hiring a candidate who aced the interviews, only to find out they're not the right fit for the job.
Your engineer wants to code, not interview candidates
A single technical hire soaks up ~40 hours of engineer time — a full work-week lost to phone screens and onsites, worth ≈ $9k in productivity. Fallom automates that busywork so your team ships features instead.
Real-World Tasks. AI Allowed.
Give them a real ticket—see how they actually get it done.
Create tailored tests
Create coding assessments that reflect what the candidate will do on the actual job.
Copilot Adoption
(per 1 million seats)
15
300%
vs last year (according to Microsoft reports)
10
5
0
Copilot Adoption (Aug ’22 → Apr ’25)
This doesn't include the large amount of developers using other tools, including Cursor. Dev workflows have changed; hiring needs to follow.
View how candidates prompt and vet their AI's code. Do they "accept all", or reject and revise?
Developers are most competent when using their familiar workflow.
As soon as an interview completes, review their code and their prompt history.
FAQ
Hire right the first time
A single bad software hire can burn $50+ k before you even notice—more if they’re toxic¹
¹ https://www.business.com/articles/cost-of-a-bad-hire/