Aural

Overview

Aural is a structured interview platform for teams that want conversations to adapt to participants rather than follow a rigid script. Its combination of live and asynchronous interviews, automatic session outputs, and MIT-licensed self-hosting makes it a flexible option; the trade-off is tight hosted-plan allowances and a REST API without webhooks or official SDKs.

Interviews can take place by chat, voice, or video, with an AI interviewer adjusting follow-up depth, tone, and direction in response to answers. Sessions are recorded, transcribed, and summarized, and structured data can be exported to XLSX or PDF. The software is open source under the MIT license, and Aural is headquartered in Hong Kong.

Key features

Adaptive interviewing

Aural supports live and asynchronous interviews, with templates and open-ended, multiple-choice, rating-scale, coding, and whiteboard questions. That range suits research or assessment workflows that need more than a standard question-and-answer format. Interview languages include English, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, and others, which can support teams working across languages.

Session outputs

Automatic transcripts and summaries reduce the manual work of turning interviews into reviewable material. XLSX and PDF exports add portable structured outputs, though the published export formats may not fit every team's downstream workflow.

API and self-hosting

The REST API uses Bearer-token authentication and has an OpenAPI specification, giving developers a documented integration starting point. It does not provide webhooks or official SDKs, and its internal tRPC and voice WebSockets are not stable Developer API contracts; teams that need event-driven integrations or supported client libraries should account for that gap.

Self-hosting provides greater infrastructure control and supports pluggable LLMs, including OpenAI, Kimi, MiniMax, or compatible APIs. Aural states that data is encrypted at rest with AES-256 and in transit with TLS 1.3, and that it complies with GDPR and other global privacy regulations. General and technical support are handled by email.

Pricing

Aural offers a free tier, usage-based billing, and monthly subscriptions. The one-seat Free plan costs $0/month and includes 3 templates, 100 AI tokens, and 30 minutes of session time. It is a useful way to try a small workflow, but the token and time caps make it unsuitable for sustained use.

Pay As You Go charges $0.08/minute for session time and $0.02/token for AI tokens; additional seats cost $10/seat/mo. This avoids a fixed monthly subscription for occasional use, but variable interview volume and token use can make costs less predictable.

Starter costs $9/month and includes 10 templates, 200 AI tokens, 3 hours of session time, one seat, and email support. It is the lowest-cost monthly option for a single user running a modest volume, but its token and time allowances remain limited. Basic costs $24/month and raises the included allowances to 500 AI tokens and 10 hours of session time, while keeping 10 templates, one seat, and email support. It suits heavier individual use; teams needing multiple seats must factor in additional-seat charges on Pay As You Go.

Platforms

Aural supports web, iOS, Android, API access, and self-hosted deployment. That mix accommodates mobile participants and teams that want either a hosted application or control over their own infrastructure.

Who it's for

Aural is best suited to researchers, interviewers, and small teams that value adaptive conversations, varied question formats, and transcripts and summaries in one workflow. Its self-hosted option is particularly relevant to organizations that want to choose a compatible LLM and manage their own deployment. It is a weaker fit for teams that need generous included usage, several seats at a predictable monthly price, or a more complete integration toolkit.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Adaptive follow-ups: The AI interviewer changes its depth, tone, and direction based on participant responses.
• Broad interview formats: Live and asynchronous chat, voice, or video interviews work alongside five question types and recording.
• Useful session outputs: Automatic transcription and summaries, plus XLSX and PDF exports, support post-interview review.
• Open-source deployment choice: MIT licensing and pluggable LLM support give technical teams the option to self-host.

Cons

• Low hosted allowances: Free, Starter, and Basic cap session time and AI tokens, so frequent use may require higher usage or another plan.
• Single-seat subscriptions: Starter and Basic include only one seat, limiting their fit for collaborative teams.
• API integration gaps: No webhooks or official SDKs are provided, and internal interfaces are not stable Developer API contracts.

Alternatives

Video Interviewing Software is a useful category to browse when comparing tools beyond Aural's particular mix of adaptive interviews and self-hosting.

Choose Hyring if its web and Windows availability or its free plan with 50 credits per month, one seat, one active job post, English-only interviews, and one AI voice better matches your hiring workflow; its Pro plan is $79 a month.

EasyHire.me is another freemium alternative, with API and web platforms and per-job monthly plans: entry is $49 a month for 10 interviews, 3 team members, and one month of interview storage, while standard is $99 a month for 100 interviews.

Consider Vesume as another freemium, web-based option. Autogram is a paid option for web, iOS, and Android. interviewstream is paid and supports Android, iOS, and web.

Jobma is a paid alternative with Android, iOS, macOS, web, and Windows support; its Starter plan includes one user, five active positions, unlimited one-way interviews, one ATS integration, and no bulk invitations. Talview is another paid option for web, iOS, and Android. Choose Willo if its per-live-role approach fits better: Willo Lite costs £49 a month, billed at £49 per live role, with payment only for live roles used each month and no contract.

Verdict

Aural is a strong choice for individuals and technical teams that want adaptive, multimodal interviews with automated transcripts and summaries, especially if MIT-licensed self-hosting matters. Its constrained plan allowances and API gaps are meaningful drawbacks: look elsewhere if you need multiple included seats, predictable capacity for high-volume interviewing, or mature webhook and SDK support.