How to Compare Two Strong Candidates Fairly

Reaching the final stage of recruitment with two strong candidates is a good position to be in, but it can also make the hiring decision surprisingly difficult.

Both candidates may have the right experience, interview well and receive positive feedback from the wider team. At this point, small differences can become overly influential, and hiring managers can end up relying on instinct rather than the evidence gathered throughout the recruitment process.

So, how do you compare two strong candidates fairly and make a decision you can confidently justify?

Go Back to the Original Hiring Criteria

Before comparing the candidates with each other, return to what you originally needed from the hire.

Look at the job description, hiring brief and essential criteria you agreed on before interviews began. Which skills were genuinely required? What did the person need to achieve in their first six to twelve months? Which experience was essential, and which was simply desirable?

This helps prevent the criteria from changing towards the end of the recruitment process.

For example, Candidate A may have worked for a well-known company, while Candidate B has more direct experience solving the problems they would encounter in your role. If brand recognition was never part of the hiring criteria, it should not suddenly become an important factor at the final stage.

Create a shortlist of the five or six factors that matter most and use these as the basis for your final comparison.

Use a Candidate Scorecard

A simple scorecard can make comparing two candidates much more objective.

Rather than asking interviewers who they preferred, ask them to score each candidate against the same areas.

Your candidate scorecard could include:

The criteria should reflect the actual vacancy rather than using the same generic scorecard for every hire.

A senior software engineering position, for example, might place greater weight on technical decision-making and mentoring. A marketing hire might require stronger weighting around commercial thinking, campaign experience and communication.

You can also give the most important criteria a higher weighting. This stops a candidate from scoring highly overall because they perform well in several less important areas while falling short on something essential.

Compare Evidence, Not Interview Chemistry

When two candidates are closely matched, it is easy to favour the person you naturally got on with.

That can introduce bias into the hiring decision.

Instead, look at the evidence each candidate provided during the recruitment process. What examples did they give? How relevant were those examples to the role? What results did they achieve? How did they approach difficult situations?

There is an important difference between:

“I thought they came across really well.”

and:

“They gave a strong example of managing a similar project, explained the decisions they made and demonstrated a measurable result.”

The second gives you something concrete to assess.

Interview chemistry can still matter, particularly for roles involving significant stakeholder interaction, but it should be considered alongside evidence rather than becoming the deciding factor.

Ask the Same Questions of Both Candidates

Structured interviews are particularly useful when comparing strong candidates.

Both candidates should have the opportunity to answer the same core questions. You can still ask relevant follow-up questions, but keeping the main interview structure consistent makes the comparison much fairer.

If Candidate A spends 20 minutes discussing leadership while Candidate B is questioned extensively about technical skills, you do not have comparable evidence.

This is also why interview notes matter. Trying to remember exactly what someone said several days later can easily lead to certain answers being given more weight than others.

Separate Essential Skills From Skills That Can Be Learned

A candidate does not necessarily need to tick every box on the job description.

When comparing two good candidates, consider which gaps would genuinely affect their ability to perform and which could realistically be addressed after joining.

Candidate A might have stronger knowledge of your current technology stack, for example, while Candidate B has stronger problem-solving experience and has successfully learned several similar technologies in previous roles.

Ask:

Which candidate has the strongest evidence that they can do the job successfully, including the parts they may need to learn?

This can be more useful than simply counting how many requirements each person currently meets.

Consider What the Role Needs Over the Next 12 Months

The strongest CV does not automatically equal the strongest hire.

Think about what you expect this person to deal with once they join.

Will they need to build something from scratch? Manage change? Improve an existing process? Work independently? Develop a team? Deal with senior stakeholders? Introduce specialist knowledge that you currently lack?

Compare each candidate against the work ahead rather than their career history alone.

A candidate with ten years of experience may appear stronger on paper than someone with six. However, if the person with six years of experience has spent the last three years dealing with almost exactly the challenges your business is facing, that experience could be more relevant.

Get Interviewers to Give Feedback Independently

If several people are involved in the hiring process, collect their feedback before holding a group discussion.

This reduces the risk of the first or most senior person to speak influencing everyone else’s opinion.

Ask each interviewer to record their scores, concerns and supporting evidence independently. Once that has been done, bring the feedback together and discuss any major differences.

If one interviewer scores a candidate 5/5 for communication and another gives them 2/5, explore why. They may have seen different evidence, interpreted the criteria differently or asked very different questions.

Those disagreements can reveal useful information about both the candidates and your interview process.

Watch for Recency Bias

Final interviews can sometimes receive too much weight simply because they are fresh in everyone’s mind.

Review feedback from the entire recruitment process before making the final decision.

That includes initial screening calls, technical assessments, previous interview stages, tasks, presentations and references where appropriate.

A weaker answer in the final interview should not necessarily outweigh several earlier stages of strong evidence. Equally, an excellent final presentation should not automatically erase concerns that appeared consistently throughout the process.

Be Specific About Any Concerns

When someone raises a concern about a candidate, ask them to explain exactly what created it.

Comments such as:

• “I’m not sure they’re senior enough.”
• “I don’t know if they’d fit the team.”
• “Something felt slightly off.”
• “The other candidate seemed more confident.”

are difficult to evaluate fairly on their own.

Ask what evidence supports the concern.

If someone believes a candidate lacks seniority, which answer or example demonstrated that? If there are concerns about communication, what specifically happened during the interview?

Turning vague impressions into specific observations makes it much easier to decide whether the concern is relevant.

Avoid Making “Culture Fit” the Deciding Factor

Culture fit can become a vague reason for choosing one candidate over another.

Instead, define the behaviours that actually matter within your team.

Perhaps you need someone who communicates openly, takes ownership of their work, collaborates across departments or is comfortable challenging existing ideas.

Assess candidates against those behaviours rather than asking whether they seem like someone the team would enjoy having around.

This can also help businesses avoid hiring the same types of people repeatedly simply because they feel familiar.

What If the Two Candidates Are Still Very Close?

Sometimes, after reviewing all the evidence, there genuinely is very little between two candidates.

At this stage, return to the business need.

Consider which candidate:

• has stronger evidence against your highest-priority requirements
• has experience most relevant to the challenges ahead
• has gaps that can realistically be developed
• complements the existing team’s skills
• is most likely to deliver the outcomes expected from the role

You can also arrange a short additional conversation or task if there is a specific area where you genuinely need more evidence. Avoid adding another interview stage simply because the decision feels difficult. Know what you are trying to establish before asking candidates to invest more time.

Making a Fair Final Hiring Decision

Comparing two strong candidates fairly requires more than putting their CVs side by side.

Return to the requirements you set at the beginning, use consistent assessment criteria and look for evidence throughout the recruitment process. Structured scorecards, independent interviewer feedback and clearly defined priorities can help remove some of the subjectivity that naturally appears when a decision is close.

There may not always be an obvious winner. A strong recruitment process should still allow you to explain why one candidate is the better match for the role you need to fill.

If you’re struggling to choose between candidates or want a clearer view of the talent available in your market, an experienced recruitment partner can provide additional market insight and help you assess your options before making an offer.