Reading Time: 12 minutes
Pre-employment assessments have become a standard part of hiring across most organisations today. Recent surveys show a sharp rise in their use. By early 2025, about 76% of companies reported using some form of skills or aptitude test for candidates. This is a significant increase from 55% just two years earlier. Personality and behavioural assessments are also widely adopted, with around 80% of Fortune 500 companies using them in hiring or development.
DiSC remains one of the most recognised personality profiles in the world. More than fifty million people have completed a DiSC assessment since 1972, which makes it one of the most frequently used tools for understanding interpersonal style. Its popularity comes from familiarity, ease of use, and its long history inside organisations.
The challenge is that DiSC was created for personal insight and team development. It was not designed to predict job performance. DiSC is an ipsative, forced-choice assessment. This means candidates select between descriptors that reflect their preferences, and the final profile compares the person to themselves rather than to a broader population. As a result, it is not possible to compare two candidates’ DiSC scores or use the results as evidence for hiring decisions. DiSC providers and testing specialists are clear that the assessment is not validated for recruitment.
This matters because not all assessments are created for the same purpose. Many organisations still rely on familiar development tools for selection, often without realising that the format, scoring, and validation behind these assessments limit their value in recruitment. When the goal is to identify the best candidate for a role, organisations benefit from tools that provide reliable comparison across people, predict performance, and support fair and consistent decisions.
This guide explores the most widely used alternatives to DiSC for recruitment. It focuses on what each tool measures, the evidence behind it, how it performs in real hiring environments, and where it fits best. The aim is to give you enough information to decide which option is right for your organisation, based on the type of roles you hire and the decisions you need to make.
Before reviewing alternatives to DiSC, it helps to understand the difference between normative and ipsative assessments. These formats influence how results are produced, how they can be compared, and whether they support fair and reliable hiring decisions.
Ipsative assessments
Ipsative assessments, like DiSC and classic Myers Briggs questionnaires, use forced-choice questions. Candidates select statements that describe them, and the system compares each trait against their other traits. The result is a profile that shows preferences. For example, someone may appear more dominant than steady or more people-oriented than task-oriented. Ipsative scores do not show how a person compares with a wider population. They only show how their own tendencies relate to each other.
This format works well for self-awareness and team discussions because it encourages reflection on personal style. It becomes problematic in recruitment because two candidates cannot be compared in a meaningful way. An ipsative result cannot show who has more of a given trait, who fits the behavioural demands of a job, or who may perform better in a specific context. Testing specialists and professional bodies consistently advise against using ipsative assessments for selection, with guidance that “ipsative assessments should not be the primary tool for hiring decisions”.
Normative assessments
Normative assessments take a different approach. They measure traits on an absolute scale and compare each person with a broader population or reference group. These assessments often use Likert-style responses and provide outputs such as percentiles or standardised scores. This allows direct comparison between candidates on job-relevant dimensions and supports validation studies that link scores to performance outcomes.
Normative assessments offer stronger predictive validity in hiring environments. When a trait can be measured consistently across people and compared with known benchmarks, organisations can link results to behaviours and abilities that matter most in a job. This supports fairness and reduces the risk of relying on patterns that were never designed to predict workplace performance.
With this foundation in place, we can review the assessment types and tools most commonly used as alternatives to DiSC in recruitment, focusing on how they perform, what they measure, and when they are likely to be useful.
Before looking at individual alternatives to DiSC, it helps to be clear about what you need an assessment to support in your hiring process. Organisations use assessments for different reasons, and the most suitable alternative depends on the type of decisions you need to make, the roles you hire, and the level of risk attached to those decisions.
Some organisations need support at the early stages of hiring. They want a reliable way to reduce large application volumes and bring structure to shortlisting. Others need deeper behavioural or cognitive insight for specialist or leadership roles where one decision carries a significant impact. In many cases, hiring teams need help identifying how a candidate might behave in situations that matter most, such as working under pressure, adapting to change, solving new problems, or managing relationships with customers and colleagues.
Assessment choice also depends on where issues tend to appear in your process. For example, if you experience high turnover in the first year, you may need a tool that links behaviour or cognitive ability to job performance. If your interviews feel inconsistent, you may need clearer behavioural benchmarks that guide what to look for. If your roles demand fast learning, complex problem solving, or working in unfamiliar situations, cognitive data may add more value than a personality profile. These are the kinds of patterns organisations report when they look beyond familiar development tools.
It also helps to consider whether you need an assessment to support screening, selection, or both. Screening tools help you identify candidates who meet the basic requirements for a role. Selection tools help you compare shortlisted candidates and understand the strengths they bring. Some assessments can support both stages, while others are better suited to a single point in the process.
Finally, think about the experience you want candidates to have. Some assessments are short and straightforward to complete. Others require more time and attention but provide deeper insight. The best option depends on the seniority of the role, the level of interaction candidates expect, and the amount of information you need to make a confident hiring decision.
With this in mind, we can look at the main assessment types used in recruitment and how each one supports different hiring needs.
Organisations that want a reliable assessment for hiring look beyond DiSC to tools that were created with selection in mind. These tools differ in what they measure and how they present results, but they share one important feature. They provide data that supports comparison across candidates and links more closely to job performance. Below are the most widely used options, based on global adoption, validation evidence, and employer feedback.
The Predictive Index
The Predictive Index measures workplace behaviour through a short behavioural assessment and cognitive ability through a separate timed test. The behavioural assessment uses a quasi-normative format, which allows hiring teams to compare candidates against the behavioural demands of a role. It focuses on drives that influence communication, decision-making, pace, structure, and relationships at work. Many organisations use it when they want insight into how a candidate is likely to behave in conditions that matter most, such as responding to pressure, managing competing priorities, or working without close supervision. The cognitive assessment supports decisions in roles that require fast learning or working with new information. Companies across sectors report using The Predictive Index to increase consistency in hiring and to match behavioural tendencies with job requirements.
Insights Discovery and similar tools
Insights Discovery and similar colour-based profiles remain popular in development and team settings. These tools help people understand interpersonal style and preferences. They are not designed for recruitment and do not use a format that allows consistent comparison across candidates. Organisations that use these tools in hiring often do so out of familiarity, although testing specialists advise against relying on them for selection decisions. They continue to play a role in onboarding and team development but should not replace tools that provide predictive or job-linked data.
Hogan Assessments
Hogan offers a suite of personality tools designed with selection and leadership in mind. These include measures of day-to-day personality traits, potential derailers, and core values. The assessments use a normative format and provide detailed insight into how someone is likely to behave at work, including strengths and areas that may require support. The depth of information suits leadership and high-influence roles where interpersonal behaviour carries significant weight. Many organisations use Hogan when they need structured insight into how someone may lead, manage pressure, or interact with teams. The data also helps with succession decisions and early development planning.
SHL
SHL provides behavioural, personality, cognitive, and skills-based assessments used widely in recruitment. Many large organisations rely on SHL when they need scale, repeatable processes, and consistent comparison across high volumes of candidates. The behavioural and personality assessments use a normative format, which allows comparison against job profiles or competency models. The cognitive assessments measure problem solving, numerical reasoning, and verbal reasoning. Employers often choose SHL when they need reliable screening tools or when they want a broad assessment suite that can be used across different role types.
Saville Assessment
Saville offers personality, aptitude, and work style assessments. The Wave personality questionnaire provides detailed insight into workplace behaviour and motivation. It uses a normative format and includes evidence that links many scales to job performance. Organisations often choose Wave when they want a clear, job-linked personality profile that highlights strengths and caution areas in depth. Saville also provides cognitive assessments that measure reasoning and problem-solving, which can be combined with the personality data to create a broad view of a candidate’s potential in a role.
Kenexa and IBM Talent Assessments
Kenexa provides cognitive, skills based, and behavioural assessments used across many large organisations. These assessments support volume hiring and help teams assess specific job requirements. Employers often choose them for structured reasoning tests, work simulations, and role specific exercises. The tools help when the focus is on a clear set of abilities or competencies that link directly to performance.
Once you understand the main providers and what they measure, the next step is to assess which option fits the needs of your organisation. Each tool offers different strengths, and the best choice depends on the type of roles you hire, the decisions you need to support, and the challenges you face in your current process. The goal is to choose an assessment that adds clarity to your selection decisions and works with, rather than against, the way your teams hire.
Start by looking at the roles where hiring decisions feel most difficult. Many organisations report challenges in roles where performance depends on behaviour that is hard to judge from a CV or interview. This often includes roles with high levels of autonomy, roles that require frequent problem-solving, or roles where the pace or structure of work can shift without warning. When these patterns exist, a behavioural or cognitive assessment that links directly to workplace demands can provide a clear advantage.
It also helps to look at where mistakes tend to appear. For example, if employees struggle in the first six to twelve months because the role requires fast learning or working with ambiguous information, a cognitive assessment can help you screen for those requirements. If teams report issues with communication, collaboration, or consistency, a behavioural or personality assessment may provide insight into how candidates are likely to interact under pressure. These are the kinds of patterns organisations recognise when they move away from development tools and towards assessments built for selection.
Consider how much depth you need. Senior and high-influence roles often benefit from assessments that explore personality traits, values, and potential caution areas. These assessments help you understand how someone may lead, respond to setbacks, or influence others. In contrast, early career or high volume roles may require shorter, more focused tools that measure problem solving, basic reasoning, or key behavioural traits that link directly to success in the role.
You should also look at how an assessment supports decision-making. The most useful tools provide clear, job-linked outputs that guide interviews, highlight potential fit or misfit, and offer evidence that supports structured discussion among hiring managers. Assessments that leave too much room for interpretation can create inconsistency or distract from the needs of the role. Many organisations report stronger outcomes when the assessment provides data that links directly to the behavioural and cognitive demands identified at the start of the hiring process.
Finally, consider the experience you want candidates to have. A short, focused assessment may be enough for roles where speed matters. A more detailed assessment may suit senior roles where candidates expect a comprehensive process. Whichever you choose, the assessment should give candidates a clear sense of what to expect and avoid creating unnecessary hurdles. This helps you maintain engagement and gives you reliable data without overloading the process.
Organisations that replace DiSC with a new assessment often improve the quality of their hiring decisions, but the transition can create new issues if the process is not managed carefully. Understanding the most frequent mistakes helps you avoid disruption and choose a tool that supports your goals from the start.
One common mistake is choosing another development tool to replace DiSC. Many organisations select a familiar personality profile because it feels comfortable or because internal teams have used it for years. This keeps the same limitations in place. Development tools can help with self-awareness and communication, but they do not provide the comparative or predictive value needed in recruitment. Moving from one preference-based tool to another does not solve the challenge of assessing job fit.
Another mistake involves choosing an assessment that does not match the demands of the role. For example, some organisations introduce a broad personality tool for roles where performance depends heavily on problem-solving or adapting to new information. In these situations, a cognitive assessment often adds more value. Conversely, organisations may rely too heavily on cognitive tests for roles that require strong interpersonal behaviour or long-term relationship management. When the assessment does not match the requirements of the role, the data provides less useful insight.
A third mistake is using an assessment without updating the rest of the hiring process. A new tool cannot compensate for unclear job expectations or inconsistent interviews. Organisations see stronger results when they define the behavioural and cognitive demands of the role before introducing an assessment. This gives hiring teams a clear reference point and ensures the assessment data supports structured decisions rather than replacing existing judgment.
Many organisations also underestimate the importance of explaining the assessment to candidates. A lack of clear communication can create uncertainty, especially if candidates are unfamiliar with the tool. Candidates tend to respond more positively when they know why an assessment is used, how long it takes, and how it links to the role. This also supports fairness, because it sets expectations and gives every candidate the same information.
Some organisations introduce an assessment without supporting hiring managers. Teams need a shared understanding of what the data shows, how to interpret scores, and how to use the information during interviews. Without this, managers may fall back on personal preference or inconsistent interpretation. When hiring teams receive the right guidance, the assessment supports better questions, clearer decisions, and more consistent outcomes.
Discover how The Predictive Index, applied through the Recruitment Optimisation Framework, helps organisations cut costly mis-hires and build teams that stay.
Selecting the right assessment depends on understanding what each tool measures, how it supports decisions, and where it aligns with the demands of your roles. The most suitable alternative is the one that gives you reliable information for the decisions you need to make and fits naturally into your hiring process.
If you need a clearer view of how candidates behave at work, especially in roles where autonomy, pace, or decision-making matter, a behavioural assessment designed for recruitment can add strong value. Tools that link behavioural traits to job requirements help hiring teams understand how someone is likely to act in situations that influence performance. This works well when teams want insight into communication, collaboration, or working style.
If your roles involve frequent problem-solving, changing priorities, or learning new tasks quickly, incorporating a cognitive assessment can help you identify candidates who perform well in these conditions. Many organisations see improvements in first year performance when they include cognitive data for roles that rely on reasoning or adaptability. This gives you a clearer signal of how someone will manage demands that cannot be learned in advance.
Most organisations benefit from a combination of methods rather than relying on one tool. A behavioural assessment paired with a cognitive test can support decisions across a wide range of roles. The right mix depends on the level of the role, the pace of work, the level of risk, and the type of decisions you need the assessment to inform.
By weighing these factors against your hiring goals, you can identify the assessment that offers the strongest support for your organisation. The aim is not to find a direct replacement for DiSC, but to choose an assessment provider that delivers reliable, job-linked insight and helps you select the right candidates that stay and perform.
If you are exploring alternatives to DiSC and want to understand how behavioural and cognitive data support better hiring decisions, I am happy to share what I see in day-to-day work as a certified partner of The Predictive Index. If you would like to learn more, ask questions, or see how PI works in practice, please reach out.
Dave Crumby
Founder at 360 Talent Solutions | Certified Predictive Index Practitioner
360 Talent Solutions Ltd is an Associate Partner of Humanostics® , a PI Certified Partner authorised to use the science, assessment software, and curriculum of management workshops of The Predictive Index.
In partnership with Humanostics, we provide companies access to the assessment tools provided by The Predictive Index.
Take the 6-minute PI Behavioral Assessment™ today. Once you have completed the 6-minute assessment, I will send you a Full Behavioral Report by Predictive Index.
Discover the best alternatives to DiSC for recruitment with a clear, evidence led guide. Learn which assessment providers offer reliable, job linked insight to support fair and consistent hiring decisions.
Discover how Swiss biotech companies can align hiring with business goals using data-driven people insights from The Predictive Index.
Discover how the Predictive Index and our Recruitment Optimisation Framework help trusts align hiring with strategy, attract the right candidates, and retain staff.
Discover how The Predictive Index, applied through the Recruitment Optimisation Framework, helps organisations cut costly mis-hires and build teams that stay.
