Greenhouse vs Workable

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.

Workable

Requisition approvals with multi-level sign-off, offer approval flows with e-signatures, granular access rights configurable per stage, interview kits and scorecards, self-scheduled interviews with two-way calendar sync and audit trails tracking every change are all documented. We found no public information on bulk actions or reporting on drop-off per stage, which is what keeps me just short of calling the pipeline an auditable record.

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.

Workable

There is a drag-and-drop branded careers page, a jobs widget for the website, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed Platinum and LinkedIn Preferred partnerships, mobile-optimized applications with auto-fill in the candidate's language, and online self-withdrawal. But we found no public information on German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or StepStone, Google for Jobs markup, applying without an account, or cost and applicants per channel — the numbers my job-ad budget actually runs on.

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.

Workable

GDPR rights are answered free of charge through a named Data Protection Officer, personal information is deleted on written request, and audit trails track changes. We found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable period following rejection, recorded consent for the Talent CRM pool, consent expiry, or logged deletion runs — exactly the parts the employer, not the vendor, is liable for.

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.

Workable

Scores are shown with their reasoning, protected characteristics are stated to be excluded by design, low-confidence inferences pass to a human, the agent can be switched off across the account and configured per job with screening cut-offs and scoring weights, and there is an EU AI Act alignment statement plus AI fairness research participation. The terms acknowledge unnamed third-party large language models, and we found no public information on informing candidates when AI is used or EU processing for these features; the privacy policy states no automated decision-making while product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing with override.

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.

Workable

A fully documented REST API with webhooks, an HRIS connector that exports a defined field set automatically when a candidate reaches the hired stage, Zoom/Teams/Meet, single sign-on and e-signatures are all public. We found no public information on a handover to a named DACH HR or payroll system such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, on SCIM, or on published API limits.

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.

Workable

The contracting entity is UK-based under English law, and the privacy policy states the services are hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., with data stored in the USA or possibly the EEA and no customer-selectable EU region described. Transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework, the subprocessor list is referenced but not shown, and we found no public information on where CV parsing and the AI features run — every applicant's CV travels a chain that person never chose.

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.

Workable

All three bundles carry monthly and annual figures and the add-ons are unusually well priced — texting, video interviews, assessments, and AI credit bundles down to the per-action credit cost, with a renewal increase capped and noticed. But we found no public information on what the tier price is based on (employees, open jobs or recruiter seats), on what a paid job-board posting adds to the bill, on the minimum term, or on VAT treatment — so I cannot compute a real annual invoice, and pricing may vary by billing country.