(1) It was not clear to us, with any level of certainty, whether either tool did anything more useful than filter out people who don't want to take the test / don't trust "AI".
(2) It was not clear to us, with any level of certainty, whether (1) was a useful, arbitrary, or counterproductive selection criterion for the roles we were hiring for.
(3) It was very clear to us, with a high degree of certainty, that both impressed a LOT of the higher ups
(4) It seemed somewhat clear that both were unlikely to get us sued (note: this is a high bar). However, HireVue (as of a year ago) could not in ANY meaningful way substantiate this claim "AI is more impartial than a human interviewer, as it has no bias," and it angers me that they make that claim.
After conducting a bunch of reviews like this (including other tools), I concluded that most AI recruiting software is a combo of (a) very useful process automation and (b) hocus-pocus, magicical, pseudo-AI. I had people telling me they used supervised learning because they had a team of supervisors in India. I had people telling me they had "Custom AI" when they were just calling some random unverified third party API. And I OFTEN heard nonsense, unverified claims of "unbiased" AI, as if eg training a hiring model using geographical factors won't tell you "don't hire non-college-age people from the south side of Chicago".
If anyone is looking to use recruiting AI, get a good IO psych person and listen to them.