The holistic review in admissions framework has gained ground in medical schools. Because holistic review is unique at each institution, there is a paucity of evidence about whether it produces a more diverse interview pool than metrics-driven processes. The aim of this quantitative causal-comparative replication study was twofold: (1) to assess whether holistic review produced a more diverse interview group than one based solely on metrics and (2) to assess how the students enrolled through holistic review performed compared to national averages. Participants included 4643 medical school applicants applying for entering years 2011 through 2015. Three interview subgroups included a holistic review group (n = 1505), an academic group (n = 1505), and an overlap group (n = 1633). The sample included 44% women, 11.9% first-generation college students, and 14.9% underrepresented in medicine. Analyses found that in all categories of demographics and experiences, the holistic review group had significantly higher percentages than the academic group. One class performed lower than the national average on both United States Medical Licensing Exam Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge; however, the other two classes performed similar to students nationally. This study supports the view that holistic review produces a more diverse interview pool than a metrics pool and is a valuable tool for increasing broad diversity.