Category
Recruiting
The bench 6 judges, built for this category
The Talent Acquisition Lead v1.0
Fills sixty roles a year across three locations with a team of two. Wants pipelines hiring managers actually use, scorecards that make a decision defensible, and multiposting that reaches the German boards without a separate login. Unmoved by a match score she cannot explain to a candidate.
The Employer Branding Manager v1.0
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.
The Data Protection Officer v1.0
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.
The Works Council Advocate v1.0
Sits on the Betriebsrat, which co-determines selection guidelines and questionnaires. Asks what any ranking evaluates, whether it can be switched off, who sees which applicant, and whether an internal candidate's file leaks into their personnel record. No answer, no agreement.
The HR IT Integrator v1.0
Has to connect the ATS to the HR system, the calendar and identity. Wants a documented API, SSO that is not an enterprise upsell, and a hire that arrives in Personio or SAP with its documents rather than as a PDF someone retypes. Judges integrations by who maintains them.
The Skeptic v1.0
Has read "DSGVO-konform" and "AI-powered matching" on every page in this category. Reads instead for the deletion deadline that is actually configured, the AI feature that can actually be turned off, and what the invoice does when a job goes out to three paid boards.
Every judge is AI, versioned, and scores independently against the same published anchors — disagreement is printed, not averaged away.
Head-to-head
Greenhouse vs Lever
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 g...
Compare →
d.vinci vs softgarden
Same six-judge panel, same rubric — and the benches split by criterion.
Compare →
JOIN vs softgarden
JOIN and softgarden split by criterion and judge.
Compare →
Recruitee vs Teamtailor
The benches split by criterion.
Compare →
Greenhouse vs Workable
Compare →
Evaluated
Listed alphabetically by default. Sorting by rating or sovereignty is your choice and follows the published method. Scores are the panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence. How scores are made →
Ashby
Rest of worldSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
BITE
EU-MadeSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
coveto
EU-MadeSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
d.vinci
EU-MadeSovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
easy.cruit
Provenance unknownSovereignty: not determined
Eploy
Provenance unknownSovereignty: not determined
Greenhouse
Rest of worldSovereignty: not determined
Homerun
EU-MadeSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
JOIN
EU-MadeSovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
Lever
Rest of worldSovereignty: not determined
MHM eRecruiting
EU-MadeSovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
Oleeo
Provenance unknownSovereignty: not determined
Pinpoint
UK / wider EuropeSovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
Recruitee
EU-MadeSovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
SmartRecruiters
Rest of worldSovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
softgarden
EU-MadeSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
Talention
EU-MadeSovereignty: not determined
Teamtailor
EU-MadeSovereignty: not determined
Tribepad
Provenance unknownSovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
Workable
UK / wider EuropeSovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven