PRACTICAL GUIDES FOR INDEPENDENT HEADHUNTERS
How to compare candidates against a job description
A candidate-to-JD comparison evaluates each person against the same current role requirements, using concrete evidence and visible gaps. A matching title or familiar employer is a lead to investigate, not proof of fit. Hirelix can help prepare the comparison while the recruiter retains the hiring judgment.
Key points
- Agree on the role’s actual responsibilities and must-have evidence before interpreting candidate fit.
- Use the same questions for each candidate and explain meaningful trade-offs rather than relying on a single score.
- Keep missing evidence, outdated information and negative evidence distinct.
Translate the brief into evidence questions
Start with the job description and the client’s latest clarifications. Identify the work the person will own, the scale of responsibility, the business situation and the practical constraints. Distinguish requirements that are essential from preferences that the client is willing to trade off. If two versions of the brief disagree, resolve which one applies before drawing a confident conclusion.
Turn broad requirements into questions. For example, ‘build the team’ might require evidence of hiring decisions, coaching, reporting relationships and outcomes. ‘Enterprise experience’ might mean owning long sales cycles, serving complex accounts or leading an enterprise product. The client’s intended meaning matters more than counting the phrase in a CV.
Build a comparison matrix from the original sources
Use a row for each important requirement and a column for each candidate. In each cell, capture the supporting experience, the source and date, your interpretation, and the question that remains open. You can ask the assistant to produce this as a table, but inspect the original material behind claims that will affect your recommendation.
Keep evidence and assessment separate. ‘The CV says she hired four product managers’ is a sourced statement. ‘That experience appears relevant to establishing this team’ is your interpretation. ‘Her impact on retention is not stated’ is an evidence gap. Combining all three into a confident label makes later review much harder.
Make trade-offs explicit instead of hiding them in a score
Illustrative comparison using fictional people: Alex has led a larger team, but the materials do not establish hands-on ownership of the client’s main product challenge. Jamie has direct experience of that challenge at a smaller scale. The useful recommendation explains which risk the client would be accepting with either person and what a conversation should test.
A numerical score can summarize an assessment, but it does not establish the evidence or make different responsibilities equivalent. Ask why one candidate appears stronger on a particular requirement and whether the conclusion would change if the client relaxed that requirement. Keep the assessment tied to this JD; a hold or rejection here is not a permanent judgment about the person.
Treat unknown and out-of-date information accurately
Missing evidence does not automatically mean the candidate lacks the capability. It means the current material does not establish it. Conversely, a title or a well-known employer does not fill that gap. Request a specific example, scope or outcome during the next conversation rather than replacing the uncertainty with an assumption.
A CV can describe past work without confirming current interest, location, compensation expectations or availability. A dated call note can be useful, but an old statement should remain historical until reconfirmed. The same distinction applies to public pages: a publication date and a job title observed on a page do not establish that the role is current today.
Turn the comparison into the next useful conversation
End with a recommendation the recruiter can assess: whom to speak with first, why that conversation is worthwhile, and the questions that could change the assessment. If the evidence is insufficient to distinguish the people, say so and identify the missing material. A defensible comparison can conclude that more information is needed.
In Hirelix, provide the JD, selected CVs and relevant notes in the conversation, or identify the saved role and people. Ask for an internal comparison first if no record changes are intended. After reviewing it, you can separately ask to save the assessment or prepare a client submission. Preparing the comparison does not authorize outreach or an interview commitment.
A request you can adapt
Replace the placeholders with your own role, people and authorized materials.
Compare these candidates against the attached JD and client notes. For each important requirement, identify the supporting CV passage or dated note, explain the evidence gap, and state any trade-off. Recommend whom I should speak with first and what to verify. Keep assessments specific to this role. Do not save changes or contact anyone.
This is an illustrative instruction, not a customer result or a guarantee of a particular answer. Check the evidence and saved results before using them. Read the product scope and Privacy Policy before providing candidate material.