A Quick Look at Tofu:
Tofu is an AI resume screening platform that ranks candidates based on "real experience, skills, and attributes" while detecting fraud across 4+ billion data points. They integrate with 32+ ATS platforms and offer a talent marketplace of pre-vetted candidates who passed assessments. Tofu uses a proprietary "Fraudbase" built from 5M+ analyzed profiles to identify fake applications. Pricing is not disclosed; demos required.
The Mokka Difference:
Tofu analyzes resumes to rank candidates and detect fraud. Mokka goes beyond resume analysis by conducting structured pre-screening interviews that generate new, verifiable evidence of accomplishments you can't find in any resume.
- Resume Ranking vs. Evidence Generation: Tofu's AI ranks candidates based on resume content and fraud signals. Mokka conducts structured pre-screening interviews that probe for specific, measurable accomplishments—generating new evidence beyond what's written on any resume.
- Fraud Detection vs. Integrity Verification: Tofu's "Fraudbase" detects fake resumes using patterns from 5M+ profiles. Mokka's Profile and Answer Integrity analytics cross-check pre-screening responses against resumes, LinkedIn profiles, and third-party data in real-time—detecting not just fake resumes but also AI-generated interview answers and inconsistent claims.
- Custom Agents vs. Recruiter-Verified Requirements: Tofu trains custom agents on "previous successful hires or sourced profiles." Mokka starts with comprehensive recruiter intake where your team explicitly reviews and approves detailed requirements (critical/must-have/nice-to-have, caps, weighting)—ensuring screening reflects current priorities, not just historical patterns.
- Resume Analysis at Scale vs. Candidate-Friendly Interviews: Tofu processes resumes rapidly to surface top candidates. Mokka provides candidates with flexible, respectful pre-screening (text/voice/video choice, no time limits, privacy controls) that helps them showcase accomplishments—achieving 4.7/5 satisfaction and 40-90% completion rates.
- Talent Marketplace vs. Your Applicant Pipeline: Tofu offers access to a marketplace of "interview finalists" who passed assessments. Mokka screens the unique candidates who apply directly to your company—people who specifically chose you, not a shared talent pool where you compete with other employers.
- ATS Integrations vs. ATS-Agnostic Depth: Tofu integrates with 32+ ATS platforms for data flow. Mokka integrates deeply with your ATS while remaining independent—posting rich candidate profiles and syncing decisions without creating vendor lock-in if you switch systems.
- Bias Removal Focus vs. Evidence-Based Evaluation: Tofu emphasizes removing bias through resume analysis. Mokka focuses on collecting verifiable evidence of accomplishments (with examples, metrics, outcomes) that hiring managers can review and question—making evaluation auditable and defensible.
- Profile Enrichment vs. Profile Verification: Tofu enriches applicant profiles with data from 4B+ data points. Mokka verifies profile claims through multi-source cross-checking (resume vs LinkedIn vs pre-screening interview vs third-party data)—ensuring enriched data is accurate, not just abundant.
Key Questions to Consider:
- When AI ranks candidates based on resume analysis, how do you verify the top-ranked candidates actually accomplished what they claim beyond detecting obvious fraud?
- What happens when a high-potential candidate has an unconventional resume format or career path that doesn't match your "previous successful hires" pattern?
- How does relying on historical hiring patterns account for evolving role requirements or deliberate efforts to diversify your team?
- What's the candidate experience when an AI screens their resume in isolation—do they get a chance to explain context, provide examples, or clarify unusual career decisions?
- For the talent marketplace: Are candidates applying to you specifically, or are they being matched to multiple companies simultaneously? How do you differentiate?
- How do hiring managers trace screening decisions back to specific resume sections or fraud signals when candidates request feedback?