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 Employer Branding Manager
Owns the career page and the job-ad budget. Wants a career site that works on a phone, applications without an account, and cost per applicant per channel rather than a logo wall of job boards. Reads a pricing page for what a posting on StepStone actually adds to the bill.
Greenhouse
This judge's pick
Lever
Criterion by criterion
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Greenhouse
Structured hiring is the vendor's founding pitch, and the entry plan carries structured interview kits and scorecards, scheduling, reporting and CRM, with an audit log and enterprise data configuration reserved for the top tier. What I could not find is the accountability layer: no evidence of hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, approval steps for offers, or a per-candidate history of who changed a stage — and the audit trail only appears in the top plan. A strong core, but the record of who decided what sits above the entry tier.
Lever
The pages describe an ATS and CRM in one with unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries plus out-of-the-box pipeline reporting, which is more than a status inbox. But we found no public information on configurable stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what.
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Greenhouse
The one candidate-facing piece the pages show is MyGreenhouse, a portal with real-time updates and surfaced opportunities where candidates can opt out of sharing their profile — but a portal that stores job preferences and search criteria reads like an account, not a phone-first application without one. We found no public information on a hosted career page, distribution to German job boards, Google for Jobs markup, or cost and applicants per channel; for someone who books StepStone postings, nothing here is bookable.
Lever
My entire spend sits in this criterion and none of it is in evidence: we found no public information on a career page, job-board distribution, Google for Jobs markup, mobile application, or whether candidates can apply without an account. The pages describe CRM sourcing and AI features, not how a vacancy actually reaches the German market.
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Greenhouse
A data-subject request portal exists and the privacy policy commits to delete or anonymise personal information once there is no ongoing business need, but no automatic, configurable deadline after rejection appears on the captured pages. The CRM sits in the entry plan while we found no public information on recorded consent for talent-pool storage, consent expiry, or a log of who viewed an applicant file. The only firm deletion figure I can cite is ninety days after contract termination, which protects the customer relationship, not the rejected applicant.
Lever
The only retention statement is contractual: after the term ends, customer data will be promptly deleted in accordance with Lever's data retention policy, with one electronic retrieval right per contract. We found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection, configurable deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject request handling, or access logging — the pieces my company is liable for.
AI screening transparency & control
Greenhouse
AI is marketed hard — AI Notetaker in the entry plan, Voice AI, AI-powered report filters, and Real Talent matching, fraud detection and identity verification — and governance artefacts exist: published AI principles, a bias audit statement, AI Terms written into the contract, and the master agreement's statement that the customer remains solely responsible for all hiring decisions. We found no public information on the inputs each feature evaluates, a per-feature switch, a named model provider, candidates being informed when AI is used, or an EU AI Act position. That is a benefit slide rather than something a works council could base an agreement on, and the privacy policy additionally reserves training of AI models on personal information including application materials.
Lever
AI matching that automatically prioritizes top candidates and AI resume screening are marketed with a transparency claim, yet we found no public information on what the models evaluate, where they run, the provider behind them, whether any feature can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position. An unexplained score next to a candidate's name is precisely what I cannot take to a works council.
HR handover, integrations & API
Greenhouse
The pages show a genuine API with a free export key for the whole term, single sign-on in the entry plan, a business-intelligence connector one tier up, a developer sandbox at the top, and a claim of hundreds of pre-built integrations with no names attached. No HR or payroll system common in DACH is named on the captured pages, and we found no public information on e-signature, SCIM or webhooks, while API limits and fees sit in the order form rather than on public pages. There is an onboarding product to carry the hire onward, but I cannot tell from what is published what it connects to.
Lever
The terms promise API tools to pull our data at any time, let us connect email providers and LinkedIn, and reference third-party products interoperating via APIs — an export-and-email level of handover. We found no public information on a connection to any HR or payroll system common in DACH, calendar or video integration, SSO, or e-signature.
European sovereignty
Greenhouse
The contracting entity is Greenhouse Software, Inc. of New York under New York law and FTC enforcement, the privacy policy says processing may happen in any of the countries its providers operate in, and we found no public information on hosting location, an EU option, or a subprocessor list covering the AI and parsing pieces. The published safeguards for applicant CVs crossing the Atlantic are the Data Privacy Framework certification and a data processing addendum. For records belonging to people who never chose this vendor, that is close to the bottom of what I can accept.
Lever
Lever, Inc. of San Francisco is the contracting party under California law with binding arbitration in San Francisco, and we found no public information on hosting location or a single subprocessor — including where the AI screening and CV processing run. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, which makes this the hardest stop for me.
Pricing transparency
Greenhouse
The pricing page names three plans — Core, Plus and Pro — and shows which features sit in each, while the contract discloses the basis: employee headcount including affiliates, fees due in advance and non-cancelable and non-refundable, automatic one-year renewal with thirty days' cancellation notice, taxes excluded, and a reserved right to increase fees at renewal. No figure for any plan, job-board posting cost or add-on appears on the captured pages, so the annual invoice stays a sales conversation. I can describe the bill but not compute it — a headcount-based model without headcount-based prices tells a buyer nothing.
Lever
The terms give me the mechanics — fees invoiced annually on the Order Form, net 30, non-cancellable and non-refundable, auto-renewing one year at a time, amounts exclusive of VAT — but the public pages show no price, no tier and no basis in jobs, seats or employees. I cannot compute even a ballpark annual invoice, and there is no word on what a job-board posting would add to the bill.
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.