Fabric and Trueyy both catch AI-assisted candidates. They just do it in two completely different places, and that difference is the whole decision.
Fabric's own AI conducts the interview and looks for cheating inside that session. Trueyy sits beside the human interviews you already run on Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams and reads signals in real time. Neither is a knock-off of the other. Once you know which interviews you actually need to protect, the choice is usually obvious.
What Fabric is built for
Fabric is an end-to-end "AI hiring" platform: sourcing, outreach, resume screening, and an interview agent that conducts conversational round-one interviews on demand and returns a scorecard plus transcript. Cheating detection is a capability inside that AI-run interview, not a monitor bolted onto a human call.
Fabric reports analyzing 20-plus signals across timing (for example, a consistent few-second delay before every answer), gaze via webcam video, and speech (rigidly structured, filler-free answers), plus browser events like copy-paste and tab switching. Results arrive with timestamped evidence a few minutes after the interview ends. It names the same threats everyone in this space worries about, including Cluely and Interview Coder.
Fabric also owns the most-cited dataset in the category. Its State of AI Interview Cheating in 2026 report, drawn from 19,368 interviews on its own platform, reports that 38.5% of candidates were flagged for cheating behavior, with dedicated assistants like Cluely and Interview Coder making up about 45% of cases. That study is a genuine contribution and worth reading no matter which tool you pick.
Where the two overlap, and where they don't
Both flag AI assistance. The real differences are scope and timing.
- Scope. Fabric protects interviews that Fabric's AI conducts. If a candidate talks to Fabric's agent, it watches that session. It does not sit on the human interviews your team runs — the hiring-manager screen, the technical panel, the final round on Zoom or Teams. Those calls are outside its detection surface.
- Timing. Fabric's read is largely after the fact — evidence a few minutes after the session — which fits automated, high-volume screening. Trueyy scores risk during the live call, roughly every 30 seconds, so a human interviewer can react in the moment.
So the question is not "which is more accurate." It is "which interviews are you trying to protect — the ones an AI runs, or the ones your people run?"
What Trueyy is built for
Trueyy starts from the interview as it actually happens between two people. It does not replace your Zoom, Meet, or Teams call and it does not conduct the interview for you. It sits beside the call and reads device-level signals on the candidate's computer in real time, with their consent, no browser lockdown and no heavy install.
It scores risk about every 30 seconds across three surfaces — apps and screen activity, keystroke and paste patterns, and voice — and recognizes ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, Cluely, Interview Coder, and 50-plus tools by the structure of what they produce, not a keyword blocklist. (Reading-gaze detection is on the roadmap, not live, so we do not count it yet.) No video is recorded or stored on Trueyy servers; audio is transcribed and screenshots are encrypted and retained per policy. There is no biometric identification, and a human always makes the final call.
Capability comparison
| Fabric | Trueyy | |
|---|---|---|
| Core product | AI hiring platform; AI conducts the interview | Signal layer beside your human interviews |
| Who runs the interview | Fabric's AI agent | Your interviewers, on Zoom / Meet / Teams |
| Covers human panels & final rounds | No, only Fabric-run sessions | Yes |
| Detection timing | Mostly post-interview (minutes after) | Real time, risk scored ~30s |
| Signals | Timing, gaze (video), speech, copy-paste, tabs | Apps / screen, keystroke / paste, voice; structural tool signatures |
| Names tools (Cluely, Interview Coder) | Yes | Yes, 50+ by output structure |
| Owns a public data study | Yes (19,368 interviews) | Not yet |
| Best fit | Automated, high-volume top-of-funnel screening | Live human interviews that decide the hire |
Which tool wins which job
- Choose Fabric if you want to automate the top of the funnel: let an AI conduct conversational round-one interviews at volume, with cheating checks built in and results wired into your ATS. That is a real, useful job, and Fabric is purpose-built for it.
- Choose Trueyy if the interviews that worry you are the human ones — live technical and behavioral rounds on Zoom, Meet, or Teams — and you want real-time signal reading beside the call without handing the conversation to an AI.
These can coexist. Use Fabric (or any automated screener) at the top of the funnel, and Trueyy on the human rounds that actually make the decision. For the wider landscape, our Trueyy vs Proctorio comparison and the full comparison page cover the other shapes this problem comes in.
A word on fairness and self-reported numbers
Almost every accuracy figure in this category — Fabric's included, and ours — is self-reported by the vendor from its own platform data, without independent validation. Treat those numbers as directional, not gospel. The independent surveys are blunter about the scale of the problem: in one 2025 study, 20% of professionals admitted secretly using AI during interviews, and a Checkr survey of 3,000 managers found 59% suspect candidates misrepresent themselves with AI. Whatever you use, weigh multiple signals together and keep a human in the final decision. A single flag is never proof, and a nervous or highly structured candidate can trip one without doing anything wrong.
Frequently asked questions
Is Fabric a Trueyy alternative?
For automated, AI-conducted screening, Fabric is its own category and Trueyy does not compete with it. For monitoring the human interviews your team runs on Zoom, Meet, or Teams, they are not interchangeable: Fabric only checks interviews its own AI conducts, while Trueyy reads signals during your live human calls.
Does Fabric monitor Zoom or Teams interviews?
Fabric runs its own AI interview agent; the candidate talks to the AI. It is not designed to sit on a human-to-human interview on Zoom, Meet, or Teams the way Trueyy does, so panels, hiring-manager screens, and final rounds are outside its detection surface.
Is Fabric's 38.5% cheating figure reliable?
It comes from Fabric's own dataset of 19,368 interviews and is self-reported, not independently audited. It is a useful, directional signal about how common AI-assisted cheating has become, but like any vendor's platform statistics it should be read as indicative rather than a benchmark.
Can I use both Fabric and Trueyy?
Yes, and for many teams that is the cleanest setup: Fabric (or another automated screener) at the top of the funnel, Trueyy on the live human rounds where the hiring decision is actually made.
Does Trueyy replace human interviewers like Fabric's AI does?
No. Trueyy augments human interviews; it does not conduct them. Your interviewers run the conversation on the platform they already use, and Trueyy reads device-level signals beside the call.
Fabric and Trueyy answer two different questions: "can an AI screen candidates for me?" and "can I trust the human interviews I already run?" If it is the second one keeping you up at night, book a demo and see how Trueyy fits beside the calls your team runs today.