Endorsed

Name: Endorsed
Brand: Endorsed
Rating: 3.7 (1 reviews)

AI Native

The IT Worker Fraud Detection Platform for Recruiting

Est 2023|11 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 605|Website|FTEs 13|HQ San Francisco, California, US

Published Aug 25, 2026

01Common complaints

- Organizations that require a vendor with an extensive public review footprint and wide analyst coverage; Endorsed currently has limited public review depth. - Environments where security policy prohibits Chrome extensions that read ATS pages or where broad extension permissions are unacceptable. - Organizations that primarily need an all-in-one ATS; dedicated ATS vendors may be a better match. - Organizations that require audited model performance metrics (for example, published bias audits, precision/recall reports, or model cards) and cannot rely on vendor assertions alone. - Organizations needing complex customization and reporting that a rapid extension-and-sync cadence may not support.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations that require extensive third-party validation, mature review footprints, or well-known analyst coverage as part of procurement.
Organizations that prohibit browser extensions that read ATS pages or have strict endpoint management controls.
Organizations seeking a full ATS replacement rather than a screening/sourcing/fraud layer.

Publicly observable limitations and risks

Limited independent review footprint on major B2B review platforms.
Inconsistent public messaging about security claims across vendor domains (for example, SOC 2 listed as both "in progress" and "Type II" in different places), which requires buyer clarification.
Help documentation notes a common user error related to locating the correct ATS page for the extension action to appear, indicating some operational friction.

Roadmap signals

Pricing tables and product materials reference features marked as "Coming Soon" (for example, rediscovery). Timelines are not specified in public materials.

Scale considerations

The vendor cites high evaluation throughput in marketing materials; no public benchmarking methodology was found. Buyers should validate performance in a pilot under expected load.

02Why they buy

Features supported by available evidence

A browser extension called FraudShield that performs fraud checks inside ATS pages; documented in vendor help center and listed in the Chrome Web Store.
A listed Pro entry price at $299/month and trial periods documented in public pricing materials.

Vendor-claimed features that require validation

Vendor statements about very large training datasets and broad recruiter adoption (for example, claims about millions of profiles or thousands of recruiters) are not independently verified here.
Vendor statements regarding external audits or bias-audited models are not accompanied by public artifacts in the sources reviewed and should be validated.

Areas where competitors may outpace the vendor

Competitors may offer larger ecosystems, partner networks, and integrations, as well as more mature reporting and procurement documentation.

03Field reports

Review platform visibility (G2/Capterra)

G2: The vendor appears as a seller but shows limited public review depth on that platform.
Capterra: No clearly verifiable Endorsed listing or reviews were found in the searches performed.

Implication: For procurement processes that rely on third-party review density, Endorsed currently has limited public review depth on major B2B platforms.

Community / social proof

A vendor representative published a social post announcing the FraudShield browser extension and cited recruiter time spent verifying candidate authenticity.
Chrome Web Store (product-level ratings): The FraudShield extension is very highly rated on the Chrome Web Store but the public rating sample is limited.

Vendor-published testimonials

The vendor publishes testimonials on product pages. Summaries of testimonial claims (vendor-curated): - A talent enablement leader at one customer described rapidly advancing a top candidate from a large applicant pool in a short timeframe. - A platform engineering manager at another customer reported sourcing time that was shorter than initially expected when using the vendor’s tools. - An executive at a third customer characterized the tool as providing initial screening support similar to dedicated recruiting effort. Critical note: These testimonials are vendor-curated; the site does not disclose the methodology, baselines, control comparisons, or independent corroboration.

Negative feedback / criticisms found

There is limited independent negative user feedback available on major review platforms within the sources captured. Two cautionary signals were identified:

Low review volume on mainstream B2B platforms, which limits objective benchmarking.
Third-party extension analysis notes that the browser extension requires broad permissions; this can be a security-review friction point for IT teams.

Vendor case study claims

Vendor materials and testimonials include claims such as:

Advancing a top candidate from a high‑volume role within a short timeframe.
Reducing sourcing time substantially for a particular role.
Product page metrics that reference rapid advancement SLAs, multi-week reductions in time-to-fill, and increases in role capacity per recruiter.

Critical evaluation of methodology

- These outcomes are not independently verified in the public sources reviewed. - The vendor does not disclose important methodological details such as baseline definitions (what constitutes an "advance"), role distribution, recruiter workload context, or measurement of fraud detection accuracy (false positive/negative rates). Recommendation for buyers: Request a pilot with pre-agreed success metrics (for example, time-to-advance, quality-of-slate, and fraud false positive rate) and compare outcomes against a control period.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Inferred from packaging and the Pro plan constraints:

Startups to mid-market organizations with meaningful inbound application volume and small recruiting teams.
Enterprise organizations could be a fit if SOC 2 status is verified and the extension deployment model passes the organization’s security review.

Industries

High applicant-volume roles such as technology, customer support, sales, and operations.
Organizations concerned about impostor candidates or identity misrepresentation in hiring pipelines.
Staffing agencies seeking faster shortlist generation.

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Head of Talent Acquisition, Recruiting Operations, and People Operations leaders.
End users: recruiters, sourcers, and hiring managers who review candidate slates.
Stakeholders: Security/IT (extension permissions and data flow) and Legal/Compliance (governance of AI screening).

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Organizations that receive large inbound volumes and need to reduce time-to-review.
Organizations that have encountered candidate fraud (for example, fake resumes or interview proxies).
Organizations that prefer a solution that works within existing ATS workflows and can be deployed via a browser extension.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Endorsed is an AI recruiting platform that focuses on: (1) reducing the time required to review and rank applicants, (2) applying AI to source candidates across large profile datasets, and (3) identifying potential candidate/application fraud through a feature set called FraudShield (including a browser extension that operates within an applicant tracking system page). Product messaging emphasizes screening speed, lowering recruiter manual effort, and identifying potentially fraudulent candidate records before interview scheduling.

Target market and market positioning

Based on product pages and packaging, Endorsed targets: - In-house talent acquisition teams at startups through enterprise (plans include SSO/SAML for enterprise). - Staffing agencies (the vendor maintains a staffing agencies solution page). - ATS and recruitment marketplace vendors (Endorsed offers APIs for ATS and recruitment marketplaces). Positioning themes observed in vendor materials: - Focus on reducing candidate fraud risks and protecting the recruiting pipeline. - Built around large language models for sourcing/matching and emphasis on rapid AI-enabled screening.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Endorsed including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →

Published Aug 25, 2026

01Common complaints

Organizations that require a vendor with an extensive public review footprint and wide analyst coverage; Endorsed currently has limited public review depth.
Environments where security policy prohibits Chrome extensions that read ATS pages or where broad extension permissions are unacceptable.
Organizations that primarily need an all-in-one ATS; dedicated ATS vendors may be a better match.
Organizations that require audited model performance metrics (for example, published bias audits, precision/recall reports, or model cards) and cannot rely on vendor assertions alone.
Organizations needing complex customization and reporting that a rapid extension-and-sync cadence may not support.

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Organizations that require extensive third-party validation, mature review footprints, or well-known analyst coverage as part of procurement.
Organizations that prohibit browser extensions that read ATS pages or have strict endpoint management controls.
Organizations seeking a full ATS replacement rather than a screening/sourcing/fraud layer.

Publicly observable limitations and risks

Limited independent review footprint on major B2B review platforms.
Inconsistent public messaging about security claims across vendor domains (for example, SOC 2 listed as both "in progress" and "Type II" in different places), which requires buyer clarification.
Help documentation notes a common user error related to locating the correct ATS page for the extension action to appear, indicating some operational friction.

Roadmap signals

Pricing tables and product materials reference features marked as "Coming Soon" (for example, rediscovery). Timelines are not specified in public materials.

Scale considerations

The vendor cites high evaluation throughput in marketing materials; no public benchmarking methodology was found. Buyers should validate performance in a pilot under expected load.

02Why they buy

Features supported by available evidence

A browser extension called FraudShield that performs fraud checks inside ATS pages; documented in vendor help center and listed in the Chrome Web Store.
A listed Pro entry price at $299/month and trial periods documented in public pricing materials.

Vendor-claimed features that require validation

Vendor statements about very large training datasets and broad recruiter adoption (for example, claims about millions of profiles or thousands of recruiters) are not independently verified here.
Vendor statements regarding external audits or bias-audited models are not accompanied by public artifacts in the sources reviewed and should be validated.

Areas where competitors may outpace the vendor

Competitors may offer larger ecosystems, partner networks, and integrations, as well as more mature reporting and procurement documentation.

03Field reports

Review platform visibility (G2/Capterra)

G2: The vendor appears as a seller but shows limited public review depth on that platform.
Capterra: No clearly verifiable Endorsed listing or reviews were found in the searches performed.

Implication: For procurement processes that rely on third-party review density, Endorsed currently has limited public review depth on major B2B platforms.

Community / social proof

A vendor representative published a social post announcing the FraudShield browser extension and cited recruiter time spent verifying candidate authenticity.
Chrome Web Store (product-level ratings): The FraudShield extension is very highly rated on the Chrome Web Store but the public rating sample is limited.

Vendor-published testimonials

The vendor publishes testimonials on product pages. Summaries of testimonial claims (vendor-curated):

A talent enablement leader at one customer described rapidly advancing a top candidate from a large applicant pool in a short timeframe.
A platform engineering manager at another customer reported sourcing time that was shorter than initially expected when using the vendor’s tools.
An executive at a third customer characterized the tool as providing initial screening support similar to dedicated recruiting effort.

Critical note: These testimonials are vendor-curated; the site does not disclose the methodology, baselines, control comparisons, or independent corroboration.

Negative feedback / criticisms found

There is limited independent negative user feedback available on major review platforms within the sources captured. Two cautionary signals were identified:

Low review volume on mainstream B2B platforms, which limits objective benchmarking.
Third-party extension analysis notes that the browser extension requires broad permissions; this can be a security-review friction point for IT teams.

Vendor case study claims

Vendor materials and testimonials include claims such as:

Advancing a top candidate from a high‑volume role within a short timeframe.
Reducing sourcing time substantially for a particular role.
Product page metrics that reference rapid advancement SLAs, multi-week reductions in time-to-fill, and increases in role capacity per recruiter.

Critical evaluation of methodology

These outcomes are not independently verified in the public sources reviewed.
The vendor does not disclose important methodological details such as baseline definitions (what constitutes an "advance"), role distribution, recruiter workload context, or measurement of fraud detection accuracy (false positive/negative rates).

Recommendation for buyers: Request a pilot with pre-agreed success metrics (for example, time-to-advance, quality-of-slate, and fraud false positive rate) and compare outcomes against a control period.

04Best fit

Company sizes

Inferred from packaging and the Pro plan constraints:

Startups to mid-market organizations with meaningful inbound application volume and small recruiting teams.
Enterprise organizations could be a fit if SOC 2 status is verified and the extension deployment model passes the organization’s security review.

Industries

High applicant-volume roles such as technology, customer support, sales, and operations.
Organizations concerned about impostor candidates or identity misrepresentation in hiring pipelines.
Staffing agencies seeking faster shortlist generation.

Roles and personas

Decision makers: Head of Talent Acquisition, Recruiting Operations, and People Operations leaders.
End users: recruiters, sourcers, and hiring managers who review candidate slates.
Stakeholders: Security/IT (extension permissions and data flow) and Legal/Compliance (governance of AI screening).

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Organizations that receive large inbound volumes and need to reduce time-to-review.
Organizations that have encountered candidate fraud (for example, fake resumes or interview proxies).
Organizations that prefer a solution that works within existing ATS workflows and can be deployed via a browser extension.

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition)

Target market and market positioning

Based on product pages and packaging, Endorsed targets:

In-house talent acquisition teams at startups through enterprise (plans include SSO/SAML for enterprise).
Staffing agencies (the vendor maintains a staffing agencies solution page).
ATS and recruitment marketplace vendors (Endorsed offers APIs for ATS and recruitment marketplaces).

Positioning themes observed in vendor materials:

Focus on reducing candidate fraud risks and protecting the recruiting pipeline.
Built around large language models for sourcing/matching and emphasis on rapid AI-enabled screening.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Endorsed including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →