For hiring teams

Real reference checks.
No phone tag.

An AI that calls every reference, asks the questions you'd ask, and emails you a report by morning.

Join the waitlist to get early access.

4.7×deeper than a survey
< 18haverage turnaround
32languages, no surcharge
reffem.app · live call On call
MR
Maria Reyes
Reference for · Sr. Product Designer
Call 02 of 03
Reffem · 00:42Could you describe a time Maria pushed back on a stakeholder?
Maria · 00:58She actually killed a launch I was championing. She was right —
Maria · 01:06— and she made the case in a deck, with the data.
Connected
Maria Reyes · Stripe
01:06
Trusted by hiring teams at
PlaintextNorthwindFaraday & Co.LatticeBeaconHalsted
Pick your approach

Three ways to check a reference. Only one of them sleeps.

Surveys get back generic praise. Phone calls don't get returned. Reffem holds the conversation either was supposed to be.

Phone calls
Best for · A single, urgent finalist

Real conversation, real signal — when you can get the person to pick up. Most weeks, you can't.

  • Highest depth per call
  • Recruiter intuition matters
  • No subscription
Reffem
Reffem
Best for · Every hire, every time

A conversational AI that calls 3–5 references per candidate, follows up on hesitation, and hands you a written summary with timestamps and quotes.

  • Calls in 32 languages
  • Adaptive follow-up questions
  • Recorded, transcribed, time-stamped
  • Themed report in < 18 hours
Surveys
Best for · A box-tick on a low-risk role

Cheap, scalable, almost useless. References fill them out at midnight on a phone, and everyone scores 4 out of 5.

  • Compliant audit trail
  • Cheap per candidate
  • Same questions every time
How it works

Three steps. Most of the time, you're asleep for two of them.

01
Takes 30 seconds

Add the candidate

Drop in name, role context, and the references you have. Or send the candidate a link and let them upload it themselves. Reffem handles the outreach either way.

02
Available 24/7

Reffem makes the calls

It calls in the reference's preferred language, follows up on vague answers, and handles voicemail with a callback window. Most references finish in under twelve minutes.

03
Ready in < 18h

You read the report

A themed summary with verbatim quotes, click-to-play audio, and a flag for anything Reffem would want to ask in person. Share it with your team or export the whole thing.

A sample report

What you actually get back. In your inbox by 9am.

Themed, quoted, and timestamped. Spot-check anything in two clicks.

Michael Chen

Former Manager at DataFlow Solutions

5/5.0
Excellent

Executive Summary

Sarah Johnson is an exceptional product leader who combines strategic vision with operational excellence. During her two years at DataFlow Solutions, she led a consumer product team that achieved outstanding results, including a 34% increase in user retention. Her former manager, Michael Chen, highlights her rare ability to balance big-picture thinking with hands-on execution, exceptional stakeholder management skills, and strong mentorship capabilities. Sarah created a high-performing team culture with the lowest attrition rate in the organization. While she could continue developing her delegation skills, this is a minor area for growth compared to her significant strengths.

Key Strengths

Strategic Product Vision
Stakeholder Management
Data-Driven Decision Making
Team Leadership & Mentorship
Execution Excellence

Skills Assessment

Soft Skills
Leadership
Communication
Strategic Thinking
Technical Skills
Product Strategy
User Research
Analytics & Metrics

Key Quotes

"I would hire Sarah again in a heartbeat. She's one of the best product leaders I've worked with in my 15-year career."
"She has this rare combination of strategic thinking and hands-on execution. She can develop a compelling product vision and then roll up her sleeves to make it happen."
1:234:05

Audio playback available in full reports

Disclaimer: This report is for informational purposes only. Reffem does not make recommendations on whether a candidate should or should not be hired. Ratings reflect opinions expressed by references.

Listen in

Two minutes from a real reference call. No script.

One follow-up question, and the reference tells you the truth. Click any line to jump.

Daniel L. on Michael
Reference 02 · 0:00 total
0:430:00
Starting at 00:43 · The moment Reffem asked the follow-up
0:00
Reffem
Good afternoon, Avery. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. As you know, we're speaking about Michael, who's being considered for a senior software engineer role here. We really appreciate you sharing your insights.
0:11
Daniel · Reference
Of course, Jordan. Happy to help. Michael reported directly to me for three years, right up until I moved to a different department last quarter.
0:18
Reffem
That's perfect. Well, to start then, how would you describe Michael's work ethic and his reliability?
0:24
Daniel · Reference
Michael was exceptionally reliable, especially when we were up against a really high stakes deadline. I remember a critical API migration project last year. The deadline was a hard two weeks. And Michael consistently stayed late without anyone asking just to make sure all the integration points were perfect. That was typical of him.
0:43
ReffemPlaying
That's great context. So could you provide some specific examples of Michael's key strengths and maybe just importantly some areas for development you noticed?
0:52
Daniel · Reference
His key strength is definitely his technical depth, specifically in backend system architecture, database optimization—just brilliant. Where he had some room for development was sometimes prioritizing technical purity over practical speed.
1:07
Reffem
Could you elaborate on that? I mean, if he's optimizing something, why is that a development area?
1:12
Daniel · Reference
Sure. There was one time Michael spent three full days optimizing a single database query. And technically, the code was beautiful. It was perfect. But that query only ran once a month for a report. A quick 30-minute fix would have been fine, and it would have freed him up for customer-facing features that were urgent. It just showed a little bit of a disconnect from the immediate business needs.
1:35
Reffem
I see. That really helps frame his decision-making. OK, how did Michael handle challenging situations or, say, conflicts within the team?
1:44
Daniel · Reference
Michael tends to avoid interpersonal friction. He's not a confrontational person. When we had a big disagreement with the design team over a new feature, Michael actually stepped in as a sort of technical mediator. Instead of arguing, he just compiled all this detailed documentation that showed, with data, the complexity of what they were asking for. He used data to resolve the conflict.
2:04
Reffem
Did that require him to step out of his comfort zone a bit to manage personalities?
2:08
Daniel · Reference
It did, yeah. He's not naturally outspoken, but he saw that an objective voice was needed. And the document itself kind of diffused the whole situation so the teams could focus on a solution instead of being frustrated with each other.
2:24
Reffem
Right. OK, next. Did Michael effectively meet deadlines and manage his workload?
2:29
Daniel · Reference
For big complex projects, absolutely. Like that API migration I mentioned, he was fantastic. But for the smaller, more routine maintenance tickets, the less exciting stuff, he sometimes needed a nudge to close those out after a big project was done.
2:42
Reffem
So he needed a little more accountability for the more mundane tasks.
2:45
Daniel · Reference
A little bit, yeah.
2:47
Reffem
Got it. And how well did Michael collaborate and communicate with his teammates?
2:50
Daniel · Reference
Within the engineering team, collaboration was really strong. He's great at asynchronous communication—detailed code comments, pull request reviews, very proactive on Slack. He was a bit less vocal in big cross-departmental meetings, tended to only speak up when asked directly.
3:08
Reffem
OK. And can you comment on Michael's ability to adapt to change? A sudden shift in project scope, for example.
3:15
Daniel · Reference
Oh, technically, he adapted incredibly well. When our whole infrastructure pivoted from one cloud provider to another, Michael immediately took the lead on learning the new tool set. He didn't even have to be asked. He just embraces technical change.
3:28
Reffem
What ways did Michael demonstrate leadership skills or take initiative on your team?
3:33
Daniel · Reference
Michael's initiative was very focused on technical growth. He noticed that our new hires were taking a long time to get up to speed. So completely on his own, he designed and documented a full onboarding curriculum for junior engineers.
3:45
Reffem
Wow.
3:45
Daniel · Reference
And that curriculum, I mean, it significantly cut down the time it took for new people to become productive.
3:51
Reffem
That's a very concrete example of initiative. Did Michael display strong problem solving and critical thinking skills?
3:58
Daniel · Reference
Absolutely. When a mission critical service failed last spring—I mean, immediate customer impact—Michael was the one who diagnosed it. He figured out it wasn't our code, but a really obscure dependency issue from an external update. He isolated the fix and had us back online in under an hour. He's a true troubleshooter.
4:16
Reffem
That shows incredible thinking under pressure. OK, just a couple more. How did Michael handle feedback and constructive criticism?
4:23
Daniel · Reference
Very professionally. After we talked about him being more proactive in those cross-functional meetings, he immediately scheduled weekly syncs with the product managers to make sure his work had visibility. He wasn't defensive at all. He just wanted to fix it.
4:37
Reffem
Avery, thank you. These examples are incredibly helpful. So the ultimate question. Given the opportunity, knowing this role is very technical and back-end focused, would you rehire Michael?
4:47
Daniel · Reference
Yes. I would absolutely rehire Michael for a role that plays to his technical depth and his problem-solving skills. I would just also make sure that role had a project manager to help with prioritizing some of those smaller routine tasks.
Pricing

Five tiers. No call-our-sales-team gatekeeping.

Volume-based, not per seat. Every plan includes recordings, transcripts, and 32 languages.

Free
Try it on one role
$0
Per month
  • 1 candidate / month
  • Up to 3 references
  • English only
  • Reffem watermark
Starter
A single recruiter
$149
Per month
  • 10 candidates / month
  • All 32 languages
  • Branded reports
  • Email + chat support
Recommended
Professional
Most TA teams pick this
$499
Per month
  • 50 candidates / month
  • Custom question packs
  • ATS sync (Greenhouse, Lever)
  • 5 user seats
  • SSO available
Business
For high-volume teams
$1,499
Per month
  • 200 candidates / month
  • API access
  • Dedicated CSM
  • SAML SSO + audit log
  • 20 seats
Enterprise
Custom volume & data residency
Custom
Annual
  • Unlimited candidates
  • EU / US / private hosting
  • Custom voice & brand
  • SLA + DPA
  • Implementation team
Common questions

What teams ask before they sign up.

If you don't see your question, write us at team@reffem.com. We answer same-day.

Will references actually pick up a call from an AI?−
Eighty-five percent do. Reffem identifies itself in the first six seconds, names the candidate, names you, and offers to call back at a better time. The conversation is so unlike a robocall that most references settle in within a minute.
How is this different from HireRight or Checkr's reference module?+
What languages does Reffem support?+
Is this EEOC and GDPR compliant?+
Can we customize what Reffem asks?+
Get started

Or skip the waitlist — talk to us this week.

Twenty-five minutes with a founder. Bring a tough hire; we'll show you the report.

Reffem demo · 25 min

Live walkthrough on a real candidate. We'll show you the call experience, the report, and how it slots into your existing ATS.

Duration25 minutes
WithA founder
FormatVideo call · Google Meet
CostFree
Last word

Hire the person, not the résumé.

References tell you who someone is to work with. Reffem makes sure you actually hear it.