Candit vs Polygraf AI: Interview Cheating Detection Compared

Polygraf AI and Candit both catch AI-assisted candidates in live interviews, and that's close to where the similarity ends. They're built for different jobs, by design, and the honest comparison is less "which one is better" and more "which category of product actually fits what you're trying to do."

What Polygraf AI actually is

Polygraf is an enterprise AI-security company first — its product line covers deepfake voice detection (marketed as the Vexon Voice Detector), AI content provenance and data-leak prevention, and mission-critical AI for defense and regulated industries, built around on-premise, zero-trust deployment with small language models running locally rather than in the cloud. That architecture makes sense for its core market: government, defense, and regulated enterprises that can't send sensitive data to a third-party cloud.

Interview cheating detection (marketed as "Meeting Guard" / their interview-cheating AI detector) is one feature inside that broader platform: it joins meetings as a visible participant and watches for deepfake voices, AI-generated responses, and identity impersonation. Polygraf publishes specific accuracy claims for this — 98%+ on named-tool detection (tools like Cluely, Yoodli, InterviewCoder, and Pickle) and 99.9% on transcription — real, specific numbers, though vendor-published rather than independently verified by a third party. Both are sold through sales: there's no public pricing, and access starts with a demo request.

What Candit actually is

Candit starts from the opposite direction: it's zero-friction anti-cheat for hiring, built into a recruiting notetaker. AI Detectability reads the interview as it happens and flags an AI-assisted answer live, per speaker, with the line that triggered it, checked against reverse-engineered builds of real stealth copilots. Counter AI suggests a question to ask back on the spot, which Polygraf doesn't offer, and the AI use report after the call shows where and how AI help showed. The same session writes live notes and scores the candidate against the role, from a pasted job description or roles pulled from Lever or Ashby.

The actual differences, side by side

AI Detectability, Counter AI and the AI use report are on Candit's Plus, Pro and Team plans. Competitor details come from their own websites and help centers, checked in October 2026.

How each one reads an answer

Polygraf's headline numbers are framed around named tools: 98%+ against Cluely, Yoodli, InterviewCoder and Pickle, by its own account. Its interview detector page also says it reads speech patterns, timing and linguistic markers, so it isn't only a fingerprint list. Still, a number measured against four named tools says little about the copilot that ships next month.

Candit's detection starts from the root of the interview itself — the literal transcript and how an answer is actually delivered, drawn from the interview's audio and text together, not just whether it matches a known tool's fingerprint. Missing filler words, a sudden shift to unnaturally polished phrasing, a flawless answer arriving with none of the hesitation a real thinking process produces — these are properties of how an answer was given, not of which specific product, if any, helped generate it. That's what still catches an AI-assisted answer from a tool that didn't exist when detection was last updated.

Candit checks both signals together — the root read on delivery, plus a corroborating match against reverse-engineered builds of real stealth copilots — but the root signal is what makes detection durable against a market that adds a new tool every few months, rather than a list that's always a step behind. It's also retested against current tools on a roughly weekly basis, not a model trained once at launch and left to go stale. On top of the flag, Counter AI suggests a follow-up for the interviewer to ask in the moment, and the AI use report after each call shows where and how AI help showed, with nothing installed on the candidate's side.

As far as we've seen, Candit is the only tool that pairs live AI Detectability with a suggested follow-up (Counter AI), real-time notes and role-based scoring in the same session.

A note on accuracy claims, generally

It's worth being upfront about something that applies to any vendor in this space, Candit included: a published accuracy number is only ever as meaningful as the conditions it was measured under, and vendor-published figures — however genuinely achieved — aren't the same as an independent audit. That's part of why Candit's own approach treats every flag as a signal with evidence attached rather than a bare score: a recruiter reading the actual transcript line that triggered a flag can judge it for themselves, rather than needing to simply trust a stated percentage. Whichever tool you evaluate, ask what the accuracy claim was actually measured against, not just what the headline number is.

Common questions when comparing the two

Could a security team and a recruiting team both reasonably want detection? Yes — and in a larger organization, it's plausible both needs exist at once for different reasons. A security team protecting against deepfakes and impersonation across every company meeting has a genuinely different problem than a recruiting team screening candidates, even though "AI-generated content in a video call" sits underneath both.

Does Polygraf do meeting notes or interview scoring at all? Partly. Meeting Guard keeps a transcript and writes meeting summaries, but nothing scores a candidate against a role, and its terms say it doesn't judge employment suitability. A team using Polygraf for interview detection would still need a separate tool to score candidates and keep structured interview notes.

Is one of these more expensive than the other? Polygraf doesn't publish pricing: access is by demo request or an enterprise pilot. Candit's pricing is public, with a free plan to start and AI Detectability on Plus, Pro and Team. Confirm current numbers with each vendor before you decide.

Which one actually fits

If your problem is broader than hiring — deepfake voices in any company meeting, AI-generated content moving through the business, provenance and compliance across a regulated environment — Polygraf's breadth is a real advantage most recruiting-only tools don't have.

If your problem is specifically the interview — catching an AI-assisted candidate without adding a separate security tool to your recruiting stack, in the same session that's already writing your notes and scoring the candidate against the role — that's the job Candit is built around, with nothing extra to install and nothing extra to configure.

Choose Polygraf AI if:

• Your problem spans the whole company: deepfake voices, impersonation and AI content in any meeting.
• You need on-premises deployment for a regulated or defense environment.

Choose Candit if:

• Your problem is the interview, and you want detection inside the tool that already writes your notes and scores the candidate.
• You want a question to ask back the moment an answer is flagged.
• You want to start today, with public pricing and a free plan, not a demo request.
• You interview on Slack or Webex as well as Zoom, Meet and Teams.

First session free. No card required.