Who are documented employer clients of Crossing Hurdles and what do they say about candidate quality?

1. Where Crossing Hurdles appears in the public record: job boards and employee reviews

Crossing Hurdles shows up in the public record chiefly as a company profile and a handful of employee reviews on Glassdoor, which offers anonymous ratings, a few qualitative comments and aggregated scores for the company, and requires login for full detail ^{[1] [2]}; other employment‑listing sites such as Dice and JobPe have company pages or placeholders but provide little or no employer‑client information about who hires through Crossing Hurdles ^{[3] [4]}.

2. What employees say — not the same as employer clients

Glassdoor content available in the sample includes brief employee impressions ranging from positive internship notes about a “cohesive working environment” to a critical review calling the operation “a scam” and describing an “AI interview” experience as “weird,” illustrating mixed internal sentiment but not offering statements from external employers about candidate quality ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The Glassdoor corpus is anonymous and employee‑facing, which makes it useful for workplace culture signals but not a reliable source for documenting who uses Crossing Hurdles as a vendor or how clients rate candidate fit ^{[1] [2]}.

3. No documented employer clients located in the supplied reporting

A focused read of the provided sources finds no explicit employer clients named as purchasers of Crossing Hurdles’ services; the only external testimonial in the sample references JobPe — a different recruiting platform — praising AI‑driven candidate formatting for a client named AnyAudit.In, which is not presented as a Crossing Hurdles client in these materials ^[3]. That absence is notable: public client lists or case studies are common ways recruiting vendors demonstrate candidate quality, yet none appear in the supplied pages for Crossing Hurdles ^{[3] [4]}.

4. How to interpret the silence: credibility, marketing bias and evidence gaps

The lack of documented employer endorsements in these sources can reflect several things: limited scale or newness of the firm, deliberate privacy of clients, or simply gaps in the captured search results; regardless, the materials that do exist (Glassdoor entries and sparse job‑site listings) are not sufficient evidence to conclude anything definitive about employer perceptions of candidate quality without further sourcing ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Independent research norms caution against extrapolating client satisfaction from employee testimonials alone, and recruiting marketing often highlights curated success stories while omitting mixed outcomes ^[8].

5. What would count as confirmatory evidence and where to look next

To demonstrate who hires through Crossing Hurdles and what those employers say about candidate quality would require client‑facing case studies, named testimonials on the company site, referenced client lists on reputable job platforms, or direct employer interviews — none of which appear in the provided snippets; prospective investigators should request client references from Crossing Hurdles directly, search press releases or LinkedIn company posts, and review contracts or public procurement records where applicable for named buyers ^{[3] [4]}.

6. Bottom line for readers evaluating claims about candidate quality

Based on the sampled reporting, there are no documented employer clients of Crossing Hurdles cited, and therefore no documented employer statements about candidate quality; assertions that specific external firms endorse or reject Crossing Hurdles’ candidates are unsupported by the materials provided here, while the available employee reviews and job‑site placeholders offer only partial context and potential marketing or anonymity biases that limit their evidentiary weight ^{[1] [2] [3]}.