Greenhouse leads on each of seven criteria, widest on candidate pipeline (5.2 to Lever's 1.8), AI screening control (3.8 to 0.5), job distribution (2.5 to 0.2) and applicant data governance (3.2 to 1.8) — six judges lean Greenhouse on each, and no judge leans Lever on any criterion. Integrations and handover leans Greenhouse, 4.0 to 2.5, though Lever's terms there promise API export of customer data at any time during the term. The genuine splits sit at the low end: sovereignty ties four judges (0.5 versus 0.0, both products listing jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure as unknown), and pricing transparency ties two (1.8 versus 1.2, neither vendor publishing prices). Lever's AI screening control split its judges: some credited named features, others refused credit absent disclosure of what the models evaluate or how to switch them off. Weighted totals: Greenhouse 2.7 to 3.9, Lever 1 to 1.7.
Choose Greenhouse if
You need depth across the candidate pipeline: the means read 5.2 to Lever's 1.8, with six judges leaning Greenhouse and zero leaning Lever.
Your team distributes roles widely across job boards: job distribution reads 2.5 to 0.2, and Lever's own verdict places its score there at 0-1.
You need control over AI screening: the means read 3.8 to Lever's 0.5, and the bench split on Lever's credit absent disclosure of what the models evaluate or how to switch them off.
Your applicant-data requirements go beyond contract-end deletion: Lever's verdict says its governance rests on contract-end deletion alone; the means read 3.2 to 1.8.
Your HR-IT integrator weighs integrations and handover: the means read 4.0 to 2.5, and that judge's weighted total reads 3.4 to 1.7.
Choose Lever if
You need contractual data-exit rights: Lever's terms promise API export of customer data at any time during the term, plus third-party API interoperability — the basis of its strongest scores, on integrations and handover.
Your recruiting ops team runs on dashboards: the verdict credits Lever's candidate pipeline score to reporting strength with out-of-the-box dashboards.
You want AI features named with stated purposes — matching, resume screening, unlimited interview transcripts and summaries, fraud signals — which some judges credited.
Your stack ties into email providers and LinkedIn through customer-granted access, or already sits in the Employ Inc. group alongside Lever, Inc.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Data Protection Officer
Answers for thousands of CVs from people who never chose the vendor. Wants deletion that runs on the stated date after rejection, talent-pool consent that expires, a subprocessor list that names the CV parser and the AI provider, and an access log over every applicant file.
Greenhouse
This judge's pick
Lever
Criterion by criterion
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Greenhouse
Structured interview kits and scorecards, scheduling and an audit log in the top plan are evidenced, and the vendor positions itself on structured hiring and auditability. I found no public information on hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, or on a per-candidate history of who made each stage change — and the audit log is named only for the top plan.
Lever
The captured pages describe an ATS and CRM in one platform with out-of-the-box dashboards and customizable reports on pipeline health and hiring activity. We found no public information on configurable stages per job, structured scorecards, hiring-manager permissions, interview scheduling, or any record of who made each stage change — the attribution an employer needs when a rejected applicant takes an AGG dispute.
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Greenhouse
The candidate portal with real-time updates and surfaced opportunities is the one piece of candidate-facing experience the captured pages show. I found no public information on multiposting, on any named German job board such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, or on career-page accessibility — so nothing tells me how a German vacancy is distributed at all.
Lever
We found no public information on multiposting to job boards, a hosted career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the application form and its mobile experience; the closest facts are a CRM marketed for sourcing and nurturing and customer-granted access to LinkedIn and email accounts. A German buyer cannot see from these captures whether a vacancy reaches the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or any paid board.
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Greenhouse
Deletion is a general promise to delete or anonymise once there is no ongoing business need, plus a ninety-day queue after contract termination — I found no automatic deletion running on a date set per rejected applicant. Talent-pool storage is real (CRM features, and the candidate portal sharing profiles with employers via an opt-out link), but there is no stated consent step with expiry, and the audit log over applicant files is named only for the top plan.
Lever
The only retention commitment we found is deletion of customer data after the contract term, promptly and in line with Lever's own retention policy — we found no public information on automatic deletion after a rejection, on consent recorded and expiring for the talent-pool-style CRM storage marketed for nurturing candidates, or on any log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. The employer carries that liability alone on this evidence.
AI screening transparency & control
Greenhouse
AI recruiting, talent matching, an AI notetaker, voice AI and candidate fraud detection are all marketed, backed by published AI principles, a bias audit statement, AI Terms in the contract, and the statement that the customer remains solely responsible for hiring decisions. But no captured page documents each feature's inputs, a per-feature switch, the model provider or how candidates are informed — and the privacy policy says personal information may be used to develop and train AI models.
Lever
AI matching is marketed as automatically prioritizing top candidates, alongside AI resume screening, unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries, and AI fraud signals — and we found no public information on what these systems evaluate, where they run, which model provider processes the CVs, whether protected attributes are excluded, or whether any feature can be switched off. An undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter, and nothing here would support a works council agreement.
HR handover, integrations & API
Greenhouse
Hundreds of pre-built integrations are claimed without a single named HR or payroll system, and I found no public information on a handover to a DACH HR system such as Personio or DATEV-connected tools. SSO, a business intelligence connector and a developer sandbox sit in the plans, a free API export key during the term is contractual, but API limits and overage fees live in the order form rather than being published.
Lever
The terms commit to tools for pulling customer data via API and recognise third-party products interoperating via APIs, and the customer can grant access to its own email and LinkedIn accounts. We found no public information on a handover to any named HR or payroll system, calendar or video integration, SSO, e-signature, or webhook support — on this evidence a hire ends in an export rather than a handover.
European sovereignty
Greenhouse
The contracting entity is Greenhouse Software, Inc. of New York under New York law, primary offices are in the United States, processing may occur in any country of its providers, and I found no published hosting location, no subprocessor list, and no named provider behind the AI features or CV parsing. For thousands of applicants who never chose this vendor, the only visible safeguard is Data Privacy Framework certification.
Lever
Lever, Inc. of San Francisco, part of Employ Inc., contracts under California law with disputes settled by arbitration in San Francisco. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, or a subprocessor list naming the CV parser or AI provider — so a German employer could not tell its applicants where their CVs sit or who else sees them.
Pricing transparency
Greenhouse
The pricing page names three plans with their feature lists, and the contract states fees are based on employee headcount including all affiliates — but I found no public price figure for any plan, add-on or job-board posting, so the annual invoice is not computable from the captured pages. Payment terms, advance non-refundable billing and the one-year auto-renewal with a thirty-day cancellation notice are stated.
Lever
The public commercial terms cover mechanics only: annual invoicing by default, payment within thirty days, fees non-cancellable and non-refundable, automatic one-year renewal, and amounts exclusive of taxes. Every actual figure sits in an Order Form — we found no public price, tier structure, or pricing basis on the captured pricing page, so the real annual cost is unknowable from public material.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
Greenhouse
Lever
Legal entity
Not determined
Not determined
Ownership
Not determined
Not determined
Data residency
Not determined
Not determined
Subprocessors
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.