Abstract: Large language model chatbots have been proposed as AI-interviewers for collecting qualitative interview data at scale, potentially bridging social science's longstanding divide between the breadth of surveys and the depth of qualitative interviews. This paper provides the first direct empirical comparison of data quality in AI-led and human-led interviews. In a randomized experiment (N = 41), university students were interviewed via synchronous text chat by either trained non-expert interviewers or a locally hosted AI system; we evaluate exposure, specificity, and relevance. Median interview duration was similar across conditions, but AI-interviewers asked more than twice as many questions per interview and elicited roughly 65 percent more respondent text per interview. Per-question responses were longer with human interviewers, though not after multiple-testing correction; only AI-condition participants skipped questions. Responses were almost uniformly on-topic in both conditions; for specificity we detect no difference, but the design cannot exclude one of up to three quarters of a point. These results were obtained with a small, locally hosted open-weight model (7B parameters), which addresses concerns about data security, GDPR compliance, and scientific reproducibility. Our findings support the viability of AI-interviewing for large-N qualitative data collection.