Hyring Meet produces automatic, speaker-separated transcription, so the transcript distinguishes interviewer from candidate as the conversation happens, rather than giving you one undifferentiated block of text to sort through afterward. The notes generated alongside the transcript are also structured and mapped back to the specific skills the interview is meant to assess, so the transcript isn't just a record of what was said. It's tied directly to what you were actually testing for during the session.
There isn't a published accuracy percentage or word-error-rate figure for the transcription engine specifically. What can be said with confidence is that every interview run through Hyring Meet is fully transcribed, scored, and recorded, so coverage isn't in question. The transcript is the foundation that technical scoring, communication scoring, per-skill ratings, and the AI summary are all built on top of. In practice, its usefulness shows up most clearly in how well those downstream scores hold up against what actually happened in the conversation, which is often a more meaningful test than a raw accuracy number in isolation.
If you need a specific benchmark for a procurement or compliance review, your Hyring contact can walk you through it, ideally alongside a live demo on a real or sandboxed interview so you can judge transcript fidelity for yourself. A practical tip for teams evaluating this: run a short test interview during your trial and read the resulting transcript side by side with the recording. That gives you a direct, first-hand read on accuracy for your own accents, jargon, and interview style, which will tell you more than any single aggregate percentage would.
