Get More Interviews Review: clear, with gaps (74/100)

Fact	Value
Domain	getmoreinterviews.co.uk
Category	AI CV building and job-application tailoring
Pricing	£0 testing; £12 Boost payment; 100 + 20 credits
Pages crawled	14
Crawl date	2026-10-20

Get More Interviews AI is a legible CV-tailoring product with a clear route from CV or career notes to an editable application draft. The product explains its two starting modes, workflow, and cost with relatively little effort, reflected in scores of 69/100 for first impressions, 68/100 for audience and messaging, and 74.8/100 for usability.

Its strongest foundations are technical and operational. Performance scored 83.6/100, with a 2.367 s mobile homepage LCP, 0.727 s desktop LCP, 0 ms TBT, and 0 CLS. Technical SEO scored 87.6/100, while risk and stability scored 81.1/100. Writing quality also scored 79.2/100.

The main limitation is support depth: docs and self-serve help scored 15/100. Design execution scored 66/100, and editorial QA scored 67/100, leaving clear room to strengthen the public experience and content trust.

Get More Interviews AI is clearly positioned as a CV-tailoring and application-drafting tool, but its headline could own that mechanism more directly. The homepage explains a concrete sequence—“Add your material”, “Review the evidence”, and “Finish your application”—and offers Improve Existing CV and Build From Scratch. Pricing adds a specific commercial frame: £0 testing, one £12 Interview Boost purchase, 100 paid credits plus 20 free credits, and no automatic renewal. The gap is proof and comparison: the supplied crawl found no named customer result and no alternatives page. Lead with evidence-grounded rewriting against the actual advert, then add an honest comparison with manual tailoring, generic CV editors, and other AI tools.

A prospect can understand the product, its starting modes, and its commitment terms with little effort. The homepage explains that a CV is compared with a real job advert before an editable draft is produced, while pricing states £0 testing, a £12 one-off Boost, 100 paid credits plus 20 free credits, 12-month validity, and no recurring billing. The FAQ also says supplied information is used rather than invented experience, and explains real-time processing and saved-draft storage. Confidence is less complete because the supplied structured-data inventory contains no Review node or attributable customer outcome, and no comparison page was discovered. Preserve the direct offer language, then add applicant-context proof and a compact decision guide.

The public journey is understandable, but the account handoff asks for extra discovery. “Start with your CV” leads into the workspace, while “Create Account” appears later in the account panel; the simulated mobile and skeptical runs therefore took three steps rather than the one-step shortest path. Pricing is easier: visitors can verify £0 testing, a £12 Boost, 100 plus 20 credits, 12-month validity, and no subscription language directly from the homepage. The CV advice index is also one click away, but its four cards show no publication date, updated date, or explicit ordering cue. Pair the hero action with “Create free account”, and add a visible latest-order signal to each advice card.

The public surface has useful accessibility foundations, but several reproducible issues remain. The homepage PSI result is 84/100 and fails image-alt, color-contrast, label-content-name-mismatch, link-name, and aria-required-children audits; the rendered DOM also reports one image without alternative text. Sampled contact, pricing, blog, privacy, and terms templates do not list a main landmark, and the sampled pages report no skip link. Visible contact fields are labelled, pages declare lang="en", and the mobile capture reflows into one column. Fix the reported homepage nodes first, add shared main and skip-link structure, then remove the contact honeypot input from aria-hidden content and verify keyboard announcements.

The visual system is coherent on the sampled pages, but its interaction and token layers need a mechanical hardening pass. The homepage establishes a clear H1, supporting copy, primary CTA, and three-step card; the 390px facts show no horizontal overflow, and body text is 16px on sampled pages. Beneath that surface, N1 extracted 252 colors, 47 font sizes, 26 radii, 51 spacing values, and four font families from 93,922 CSS bytes. The homepage mobile input computes to 14.4px, and small tap targets are reported across every sampled template: 9 homepage, 14 blog, 13 pricing, 8 privacy, and 8 terms. Consolidate active tokens and audit each target at element level.

The homepage is close to the mobile LCP target and performs strongly in the available lab sample. Mobile LCP was 2.367 s, desktop LCP was 0.727 s, and the sampled CV-screening and tailoring pages reached 1.370 s and 1.374 s. The same runs reported 0 ms TBT and 0 CLS, but no CrUX field data was returned, so these are directional lab results. The largest measured opportunity is delivery weight: PSI estimates 561 KiB of unused JavaScript, 1,320 ms of render-blocking savings, and 839 KiB of cache-lifetime savings on the homepage. Split workspace code from the marketing shell, defer non-critical work, and cache fingerprinted static assets without making personalized HTML public.

The strongest copy names the applicant’s action and the product’s boundary. “Add your material”, “Review the evidence”, and “Finish your application” give the workflow shape, while the pricing page explains the £12 one-off purchase, 12-month term, and credit rules. The main editorial weakness is the ATS narrative: the checker says, “Research consistently shows that the majority of CVs submitted for competitive roles are filtered at this stage,” but the supplied page evidence names no study or source. Add a named link or narrow the sentence to a qualified explanation about some employers using ATS filters. Also remove the contact page’s pre-launch note about a support email that “may be added”, and consolidate the duplicate homepage route.

The available evidence shows a live, crawlable public site rather than an active sitewide suppression, but two discovery risks deserve priority. The blog hub contains 335 raw words and only 33 rendered words, a raw/rendered ratio of 0.10; if article links and introductory copy arrive late, discovery is more fragile. Internal links also favour /index.php even though that URL canonicalizes to the root and sits outside the sitemap. The site combines the product with four captured advice articles, but no GSC, analytics, field CWV, or continuous current-site history was supplied, so this review cannot claim traffic loss or recovery timing. Serve the blog hub’s core content in initial HTML, standardize homepage links, then establish measurement baselines.

The corpus is readable and structured, but it needs a final claim and publication-hygiene pass. The ATS checker presents the majority-filtering statement without a named source, so it is not verifiable as published; the related pages should receive the same review. A more consequential trust issue is the data wording: the homepage FAQ says pasted text is not shared with third parties or used to train AI models, while the privacy notice says submitted content may be processed by the AI provider and other technical service providers. Reconcile both with one precise data-flow statement. Then shorten the five reported long title tags, consolidate duplicate homepage metadata, redirect the trailing-slash blog variant, and add the confirmed missing image alt text.

The homepage FAQ answers important product questions, but it cannot replace task-level documentation. It covers CV improvement, building from scratch, cover letters, UK and US conventions, grounded rewrites, and data handling. The discovered support surface is still thin for a CV-building SaaS. Keep the FAQ as an entry point, add a visible Help or Support link, and publish focused guides with prerequisites, ordered actions, expected output, and an escalation route.

Technical SEO foundations are strong: robots.txt allows the site and declares the verified sitemap, the sitemap contains 13 public URLs, sampled pages return 200, the nonexistent probe returns 404, and HTTP and non-www requests consolidate to HTTPS www in one hop. The priority issue is the blog hub’s rendering gap—335 raw words versus 33 rendered words, ratio 0.10—which makes discovery more dependent on rendering than necessary. Internal links also target /index.php while that URL canonicalizes to the root and is outside the sitemap; /blog/index.php/ separately returns 200 instead of redirecting. Put blog links and introductory copy in initial HTML, standardize homepage URLs, redirect the trailing-slash variant, then add HSTS and X-Content-Type-Options after validation.

Get More Interviews AI works best for job applicants with an existing CV or rough career notes who are tailoring applications for UK or US roles. The offer is easy to understand, the two starting modes are concrete, and the workflow produces editable CV and cover-letter drafts grounded in the information supplied.

The product’s strongest evidence is its technical baseline: performance scored 83.6/100 and technical SEO 87.6/100. Three fixable weaknesses shape the verdict: public docs and self-serve help scored 15/100, design execution scored 66/100, and editorial QA scored 67/100. Building a clearer support layer, tightening visual execution, and resolving content-trust issues would make the experience more dependable for first-time applicants.

This 13-dimension review combines the 14-page crawl dated 2026-10-20 with the public dimension score table, product facts, site profile, and supplied performance evidence. It evaluates the public marketing surface and embedded CV workspace; the byline describes the result as a 13-dimension review.

Two dimensions were excluded as not applicable: 12 · Decision-support surfaces and 13 · Review-content integrity. Google Search Console was not connected and access was unavailable in the supplied profile, so no traffic diagnosis is included. The risk summary also notes that no traffic symptom was supplied.

For the scoring framework and data notes, see How SiteList scores.