Flowmingo
Evaluate every applicant, not just the ones with good CVs
About Flowmingo
Flowmingo is a recruiting platform built around one argument: most hiring processes only ever look closely at the five or ten candidates whose CVs read well, and that is a filter on CV writing rather than on ability. It runs AI interviews and CV evaluation across every applicant instead, so the shortlist is drawn after assessment rather than before it.
The claim is a fairness claim as much as an efficiency one, and it is a real effect. Someone who has written thirty applications has a better CV than someone equally capable who has written three, and screening on documents rewards that. Assessing everyone changes what the filter measures.
It is worth knowing that automated candidate assessment is a regulated area and getting more so. The EU AI Act treats employment screening as high risk, and New York City Local Law 144 requires bias audits and candidate notification for automated employment decision tools. None of that is a reason not to use it, but it is a reason to read your own obligations rather than assume the vendor has discharged them for you.
You post a role and applicants come through the standard Flowmingo page, or your own branded version on a paid plan.
Every applicant gets an AI interview rather than only the ones who cleared a CV screen. This is the inversion the product is built on, and the free tier includes it without limit, which is an unusually confident thing to give away.
CV evaluation runs alongside, so you have both the document and the interview for every candidate rather than the document for everyone and the interview for a few.
You review the results in the app. Downloads are a paid feature, and video retention is what most distinguishes the plans: 45 days on Starter, kept indefinitely on Growth.
- •Every applicant assessed - the shortlist comes after evaluation instead of before it.
- •Unlimited AI interviews on the free tier - the core capability is not the upsell.
- •CV evaluation alongside the interview - both signals for every candidate, not one each for different groups.
- •Video retention as the plan axis - 3,000 for 45 days against 30,000 kept forever, which is the honest difference between the tiers.
- •Branded application pages - your own page rather than a standard one, on paid plans.
- •Metered extras - sponsored sessions and CV unlocks priced per use, so heavy months cost more than the sticker.
Fast-growing teams receiving more applications than they can interview, which is the situation the whole design assumes. It is most valuable where the applicant pool is large and the CV signal is weak, such as early-career hiring.
Teams with an explicit fairness objective will find the argument here aligned with theirs, provided they do the compliance work that automated screening now carries.
It is a poor fit for senior or specialist hiring, where the pool is small, every candidate is already interviewed by a person, and the bottleneck was never screening capacity.
