Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the reviews of Mercor from past customers?
Executive Summary
Past customer and applicant feedback on Mercor is sharply divided: applicant-facing review platforms show significant complaints about deceptive or opaque hiring processes, while employee-facing sites record generally positive workplace ratings emphasizing pay and flexibility. The evidence base leans heavily on a small set of online reviews and platform notes, so conclusions should focus on hiring-process risk and internal employee experiences rather than definitive judgments about Mercor’s product quality [1] [2] [3].
1. What complainants consistently allege about hiring — “fake jobs” and wasted time
Several sources report a pattern of negative applicant experiences centered on recruitment: low Trustpilot scores (TrustScore ~2.2 from 10 reviews) and numerous user comments alleging misleading job listings, protracted AI-driven interview sequences that felt like data collection, poor follow‑up, and privacy concerns around requests for sensitive documents. Complainants describe feeling scammed or that their time was wasted, with only isolated positive applicant reports such as a February 2024 remote job that lasted seven months. These accounts frame the principal public complaint against Mercor as process and transparency failures in hiring, not product defects [1].
2. The employee perspective paints a different picture — pay and flexibility praised
Employee reviews on Glassdoor and Indeed present a contrasting view: Mercor employees rate the company highly (overall 4.5/5 on Glassdoor from 42 reviews), with high salary, remote flexibility, and growth opportunities frequently mentioned as core positives. About 83% of reviewers say they would recommend the company and 86% approve of the CEO. Criticisms from employees focus on long hours, evolving management processes, and occasional poor internal communication. This internal perspective suggests that workforce satisfaction and compensation are strengths even as operational kinks remain [2] [4].
3. The AI‑interview and data‑collection allegation — a recurring theme requiring scrutiny
Independent commentary and medium‑format analysis flag the company’s use of AI interviews as potentially serving dual purposes: legitimate screening and data harvesting for model training. One detailed Medium piece framed the interview flow as possibly intended to collect training data for large language models, urging caution for applicants sharing personal information (dated July 27, 2025). The company’s own documentation on AI and data use exists but does not substitute for third‑party corroboration; the allegation remains serious and actionable because it directly implicates applicant privacy and consent [5] [6].
4. Evidence quality and the danger of conflating different sources
The record is uneven and partly confounded by mismatched or inaccessible sources: some links returned errors or pointed to similarly named but unrelated organizations, creating a risk of false attribution. A fact‑check summary notes that the most concrete negative feedback concentrates on hiring and applicant experiences, while other sources can mix employee reviews and customer service notes. The result is a polarized but narrow evidence base—strong signals about recruiting practices, less robust data on product performance—so readers should treat conclusions as provisional and tied to specific complaint categories [3] [7].
5. Timeline and recentness — what changed and when to trust it
Recent items include a newsletter profile dated April 14, 2025, describing Mercor’s founders, funding, and product metrics without customer review content, while a July 27, 2025 commentary explicitly critiques AI interview practices. Trustpilot and Glassdoor snapshots cited in the analyses represent the most direct user feedback; one Trustpilot snapshot reports a 2.2 TrustScore (10 reviews) and another fact check references a 1.9 rating as of October 8, 2025. These timestamps show negative applicant sentiment persisting through mid‑to‑late 2025, while employee satisfaction ratings remained relatively stable in the same period [8] [5] [1] [3].
6. What this means for prospective applicants and customers — practical next steps
Given the split evidence, the prudent course is to treat Mercor’s hiring pipeline with healthy skepticism: verify job postings, avoid sharing SSNs or tax forms until an offer is authenticated, and request human contact points. For buyers or partners evaluating Mercor products, prioritize direct demos, contract clauses on data use, and independent references rather than relying on platform reviews alone. The strongest, consistent public signal is about recruitment transparency and data practices; that is where due diligence will yield the most protection for applicants and clients [1] [2] [5] [3].