Greenhouse vs Workable

Greenhouse

Structured interview kits and scorecards ship in the entry plan alongside scheduling and reporting — the substance of structured hiring — and an audit log and enterprise-level data configuration exist, but only in the top plan. We found no public information on approval workflows for requisitions and offers, on a per-candidate history of every stage change and who made it in the lower plans, or on templated candidate communication in German.

Workable

Custom pipelines with granular permissions per stage, multi-level requisition approvals, offer approval flows with e-signatures, structured interview kits and scorecards, and audit trails logging every change — a decision trail a works council can actually read, with every score shown with its reasoning and overridable. We found no public information on bulk actions, on time-to-hire and drop-off reporting per stage, or on a full per-candidate history export for a discrimination dispute, so I stop short of the top.

Greenhouse

The only candidate-facing evidence is the MyGreenhouse portal, which keeps candidates informed with real-time updates and surfaces opportunities — candidates can at least see their own status. We found no public information on job-board distribution, a branded career page, German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, or a mobile application without an account.

Workable

A branded careers-page builder with an embeddable jobs widget, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed and LinkedIn named as partner tiers, and mobile application with auto-fill in the candidate's native language — solid, and candidates can withdraw online themselves. We found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, per-board booking and budget tracking, or a stated accessibility standard for the career page.

Greenhouse

The contract queues all customer data for deletion ninety days after termination, the privacy policy states personal information is deleted or anonymised when there is no ongoing business need, and a data-subject request portal exists. We found no public information on a configurable per-applicant deletion deadline after rejection, on recorded consent for talent-pool storage, or on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file outside the top plan's audit log.

Workable

Retention is described only as "as long as necessary", deletion happens on request, a DPO channel and free GDPR rights requests exist, and audit trails track changes — but we found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable period following rejection, on talent-pool consent with expiry, or on a log of who viewed an applicant's file. The privacy policy's own deletion and re-consent mechanics stop at request-driven removal, and "GDPR automation tools" are named without description.

Greenhouse

AI runs through the product — AI recruiting, talent matching, fraud detection and identity verification, an AI Notetaker, Voice AI — with dedicated AI Terms incorporated into the agreement, published AI principles and a bias audit statement, and the master agreement stating the customer remains solely responsible for all hiring decisions. We found no public information on what any of these features evaluate, on a per-feature switch, on the model provider, or on an EU AI Act position, and the privacy policy reserves the right to use personal information to develop and train AI models — for a works council agreement that is not enough to sign.

Workable

The Agent is disclosed with purpose and inputs — sourcing, screening and qualifying against up to 14 job criteria — every score carries its reasoning, actions are logged and reversible, low-confidence inferences pass to a human, an account-wide off switch is published, protected characteristics are stated excluded by design, and an EU AI Act alignment is stated — most of what a Betriebsrat asks for. We found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used, on EU processing for the AI features, or on a named model provider, and the captured pages give different accounts of automated advancement: the privacy policy states no automated decision-making or profiling while product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing.

Greenhouse

An API is offered with usage limits, rate limits and fees set per Order Form, hundreds of pre-built integrations are cited as a count, SSO ships in the entry plan, and the vendor sells its own onboarding product. We found no public information on a handover carrying a hire's data into an HR or payroll system common in DACH, on SCIM, on e-signature for contracts, or on any named integration partner.

Workable

A documented REST API with webhooks, SSO, e-signatures, Zoom/Teams/Meet, and an automatic handover when a candidate reaches the hired stage that carries the resume and core fields into the connected HRIS — good bones. But we found no public information naming any HR, payroll or DACH system on the receiving end, and none on SCIM, published API limits, or deletion propagating to connected systems, which is exactly where an internal candidate's file leaks into a personnel record.

Greenhouse

Every applicant file would belong to a US contracting entity under New York law and exclusive New York jurisdiction, with primary offices in the United States and processing that the privacy policy says may occur in any country where providers and partners operate; subcontractors are permitted but we found no published list. Data Privacy Framework certification is a US framework, and we found no public information on EU hosting or on where the AI and parsing features run — for records belonging to third parties who never chose this vendor, that is the bottom of the scale.

Workable

The contracting entity is London-based under English law, and the services are stated to be hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc.; the policy allows storage in the USA as well as the EEA, but we found no public information on a customer-selectable EU region. Transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework with the US entity self-certified, a sub-processor list is published by link, and the terms name third-party large language models without location — for applicant data belonging to people who never chose this vendor, that is a co-determination problem.

Greenhouse

Three tiers are published with their feature lists, and the fee basis is stated publicly as "Customer's employee headcount, which shall also include all employees of Customer's Affiliates", with payment terms, auto-renewal and taxes-exclusive treatment documented. We found no public price figures for any tier, no add-on prices, no job-board posting costs and no API overage rates — fees are set on the applicable Order Form, so the annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages.

Workable

All three bundles are priced publicly with add-ons itemised monthly and AI credits priced per credit, a five percent renewal cap with 45 days' notice, and a 15-day trial without a card. But we found no public information on what the monthly price is based on — seats, jobs or employees — on tier limits, job-board posting costs, the minimum term, or VAT treatment, and pricing is stated to vary by billing country, so the real annual invoice is not computable from the public pages.