Recruiting
Ashby
Rest of world Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Ashby, Inc. · www.ashbyhq.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Ashby, Inc. is a Delaware corporation selling an all-in-one ATS spanning CRM & Sourcing, Scheduling and Analytics. Applicant data governance leads the scoring at 6 to 7: retention rules cover lead and applicant inactivity and consent, filter by job location, resolve conflicts to the latest retention date, and produce audit-ready documentation. Job distribution is the floor at 0 to 0 — we found no public information on a hosted career page, multiposting or any named job board. AI screening control holds at 4 to 4, with features opt-in from admin settings but we found no public information on their inputs or the provider behind them; pricing transparency sits at 2 to 2, the model described openly (company size at purchase, not seats) but no price figure published, Plus reading "Get in Touch" and custom pricing above 100 employees. Sovereignty spans 0 to 1: California law, Amazon Web Services hosting with no region stated, and acknowledged transfers to the United States, against Data Privacy Framework certification and a Hamburg EU representative.
Speaks for it
- Retention is a genuine rules engine available to all customers, with separate lead-inactivity, applicant-inactivity and consent rules, job-location filters, latest-retention-date conflict resolution and audit-ready compliance reporting.
- AI features such as assisted application review and talent rediscovery are opt-in, enabled feature by feature from admin settings, with credit allowances quantified per plan.
- A documented developers' API with regenerable access keys, SSO via SAML and OIDC, and opt-in OAuth integrations that can be disabled at any time and cost nothing.
- Interview plans define candidate stages and are assigned per job, with permission levels scoped globally, by department or by individual job.
- The pricing model is stated openly — one platform price across ATS, CRM & Sourcing, Scheduling and Analytics, a 10% discount for annual commitments, and no module or integration fees.
Held against it
- Job distribution scored 0 to 0, with no public information on a hosted career page, multiposting, Google for Jobs markup or any named job board.
- No price figure is published for any tier — Plus says "Get in Touch", organisations above 100 employees move to a custom pricing model, and add-ons such as Advanced Scheduling and AI Notetaker are named without prices.
- The AI features are named without their mechanics — we found no public information on the inputs each evaluates, the model provider behind them, or a published EU AI Act position.
- The contracting entity is Ashby, Inc., a Delaware corporation under California law with San Francisco venue, the privacy policy states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, and hosting is on Amazon Web Services with no region stated.
- We found no public information on a handover to HR or payroll systems common in DACH such as Personio or DATEV-connected tools, on SCIM, webhooks, e-signature or published API limits, with Workday the one named HRIS.
Best for
- You want one platform across ATS, CRM, scheduling and analytics, priced by company size rather than seats, and your organisation sits in the 1–100 startup tier.
- You need auditable retention control over applicant and talent-pool data, with consent-based rules and per-candidate compliance reports.
- You want AI screening off until you switch it on, feature by feature, with consumption metered through published AI credit allowances.
- Your HRIS is Workday, the one HRIS handover documented on the vendor's own docs site.
Avoid if
- You need multiposting, a hosted career page or German job-board distribution inside the ATS — job distribution scored 0 to 0 and we found no public information on any of it.
- You must compute an annual invoice from public prices before contacting the vendor — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your works council needs documented decision records — we found no public information on structured scorecards, offer approvals, a per-candidate stage history, or the inputs and provider behind the AI review.
- EU-resident processing of applicant data is a hard requirement — the vendor is a US corporation, transfers to the United States are acknowledged, and we found no public information on the hosting region beyond Amazon Web Services.
The scores
Applicant management & hiring workflow
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The daily work of hiring: pipeline stages per job, collaboration with hiring managers, structured evaluation, interview scheduling and candidate communication — judged on whether a decision is documented rather than merely made.
0 — An inbox of applications with a status field; no stages per job, no shared evaluation and no record of who decided what.
3 — A fixed pipeline with drag-and-drop stages and email templates, but hiring managers see everything or nothing, and evaluation is free-text comments.
5 — Configurable pipelines per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, interview scheduling with calendar integration, and templated candidate emails in German.
8 — Approval workflows for requisitions and offers, role-based access per team and location, structured interview kits, bulk actions with automated but reviewable candidate communication, and a history on each candidate of every stage change and who made it.
10 — The pipeline is an auditable record of a fair process: every decision attributed and reasoned, evaluation criteria fixed before applications arrive, reporting on time-to-hire and drop-off per stage, and the full history exportable per candidate for an AGG dispute.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Interview plans define the candidate stages for each job and every job requires one, and teammate permission levels can be scoped globally, by department or by individual job — the shape of a pipeline my hiring managers could actually work in. Interview recording with transcripts and suggested feedback exists, but we found no public information on structured scorecards with fixed evaluation criteria, on approval workflows for offers, or on a per-candidate record of who moved whom and why, and nothing about candidate email templates in German. 1 5 6
The Employer Branding Manager
Interview plans are created centrally and assigned per job, so candidate stages follow the vacancy, and teammate permission levels can be scoped globally or to specific departments and jobs. Interview recordings with transcripts and suggested feedback are described. We found no public information on structured scorecards, calendar-connected scheduling, or a per-candidate history of every stage change and who made it, so I cannot confirm a decision is documented rather than merely made. 3 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
Interview plans define the stages a candidate passes through and are assigned per job, and teammate permission levels can be scoped to specific jobs and departments, which covers the core of structured pipeline work. We found no public information on structured scorecards, approval workflows for offers, or a per-candidate history showing who made each stage change — the decision record I would need in an AGG dispute. 6 5 1
The Works Council Advocate
Interview plans define the stages per job and permission levels can be scoped to specific jobs and departments, so the basic question of who sees which applicant is answered. We found no public information on structured scorecards, on approval steps for requisitions and offers, or on any history of who changed a candidate's stage and when — for a co-determined selection process, that record of decided-by-whom is the part we cannot agree without. 6 5 10
The HR IT Integrator
Interview plans are defined centrally and assigned per job, and permission levels can be set globally or scoped to specific departments and jobs, so hiring managers can be held to their own vacancies. A scheduling module with an advanced scheduling add-on, interview recording with transcripts and suggested feedback, and templated candidate SMS cover the daily loop. We found no public information on structured scorecards, requisition or offer approvals, or a per-candidate history of every stage change and who made it. 6 5 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Interview plans are created centrally and assigned per job, permission levels can be scoped to departments and individual jobs, and scheduling, AI-generated feedback summaries and templated two-way candidate SMS sit in the platform. We found no public information on structured scorecards, approval steps for requisitions or offers, or a history showing who moved which candidate and when. The decision trail a works council would ask to see is not documented in anything captured. 1 6 5 3 2
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a vacancy in front of the right people and letting them apply: job-board distribution for the German market, the career page, and an application process that does not lose candidates on a phone.
0 — No career page and no job-board distribution; vacancies are posted by hand elsewhere.
3 — A basic hosted job list and free aggregator feeds, with no named German boards, and an application form that requires an account or a desktop.
5 — A branded career page, multiposting to named boards including the Bundesagentur für Arbeit and at least one major German paid board, Google for Jobs markup, and mobile application without an account.
8 — Multiposting with booking and budget tracking per board from inside the system, source attribution per applicant, career page in several languages with an embeddable widget, accessibility stated, and an application form configurable per job.
10 — Distribution is measured, not only broadcast: cost and applicants per channel reported, the career page meets a stated accessibility standard, one-click or CV-parse application on mobile, and candidates can see their own status and withdraw themselves.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The captured product overview presents ATS, CRM and sourcing, scheduling and analytics, and we found no public information on multiposting to job boards, a branded career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the mobile application experience. For my three German locations there is nothing on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or any named German paid board, so this criterion rests on complete absence of public information. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
This is the criterion I read the pages for, and we found no public information on a branded career page, multiposting to German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or StepStone, Google for Jobs markup, or an application form that works on a phone without an account. The homepage describes the whole recruiting workflow, and the pricing page is silent on job-board posting costs, so we also found no public information on cost or applicants per channel for my job-ad budget. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on a hosted career page, multiposting to German job boards, Google for Jobs markup, or a mobile application flow — the captured pages evidence no distribution capability to credit, so I score this at the bottom. 1 2
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on multiposting, a hosted career page, or any German job board in the captured pages — the homepage names the ATS, CRM, scheduling and analytics modules only, and the pricing page lists add-ons such as Advanced Scheduling and AI Notetaker with no posting packages. With nothing on distribution, Google for Jobs markup, or the mobile application path, this sits at the bottom of the scale. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The captured homepage and pricing pages give me nothing to work with here: no career page, no job-board distribution for the German market, no Google for Jobs markup and no description of the application form a candidate meets. We found no public information on any of it, so I can only score the absence. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a hosted career page, multiposting, any named job board, or Google for Jobs markup; the only mention of postings is a terms clause under which Ashby may review job postings to confirm compliance. The integrations overview speaks of "a wide range of integrations" without naming a single board, so nothing here lets a buyer judge how a vacancy reaches the German market. 4 12
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What happens to the data of people who were not hired: automatic deletion on a configurable deadline, talent-pool consent that expires, data-subject requests, and access logging — the criterion the employer is actually liable for.
0 — Nothing stated about retention or deletion; applicant data stays until someone removes it by hand.
3 — Manual deletion and an anonymise button exist, but no automatic deadline, and talent-pool storage has no stated consent step.
5 — Automatic deletion or anonymisation after a configurable period after rejection, talent-pool storage only with recorded consent, and a documented way to answer an access or erasure request.
8 — Retention rules per country or entity, consent with expiry and automated re-consent requests, candidate self-service for their own data, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and permissions a works council can review.
10 — Governance that can be evidenced: deletion runs are logged and reportable, special-category data can be excluded or restricted by field, every export is recorded, and the vendor publishes how deletion propagates to backups and to the job boards and tools it syncs with.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Multiple retention rules are available to every customer — inactivity rules for applicants and leads plus consent-based rules, each filtered by job location with the latest retention date winning any conflict — and a candidate who has submitted consent is exempt from inactivity deletion, which is a real talent-pool consent mechanism. Reporting shows the winning rule per candidate and generates audit-ready documentation, and a Privacy Request Manager is the documented route for access and erasure requests. We found no public information on consent expiry with automated re-consent requests, on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, or on candidate self-service for their own data. 3 7 8
The Employer Branding Manager
Retention is rule-based and genuinely thought through: separate inactivity and consent rules for applicants and leads, each with its own filters targeting job location, available to all customers, plus reports showing the winning rule per candidate and audit-ready documentation. The privacy policy confirms a customer-configurable retention period and a Privacy Request Manager for data-subject requests. We found no public information on consent expiry with automated re-consent requests, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, or candidate self-service for their own data. 3 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Multiple retention rules per scenario — applicant inactivity, lead inactivity and consent — with filters by job location, a defined conflict resolution, and reporting that shows the winning rule per candidate and calls itself audit-ready take this well past the basics. But we found no public information that deletion actually executes on the stated date rather than flagging violations, no consent expiry with automated re-consent requests, and no log of who viewed or exported an applicant file — precisely the things the employer is liable for. 8 7 3
The Works Council Advocate
Multiple retention rules can be defined per scenario, filtered by job location and candidate set, and a consent-based rule means a candidate who has submitted consent is not flagged for deletion — that is a foundation a works council can work with, and compliance reporting is described as audit-ready documentation. We found no public information on consent expiry and automated re-consent, on candidate self-service for their own file, or on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant's data. 8 7 3
The HR IT Integrator
Retention is a real rules engine rather than a setting: multiple inactivity and consent-based rules, each with its own filters targeting job location, defined conflict resolution, and a per-candidate report of the winning rule with audit-ready documentation, available to all customers. Consent-based rules mean talent-pool storage hangs on recorded consent, and a Privacy Request Manager plus referral to the employing company covers data-subject requests. We found no public information on consent expiry with automated re-consent, a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, or how deletion propagates to backups and connected tools. 8 7 3
The Skeptic
This is the one thing documented in depth: multiple retention rules available to all customers, split by lead and applicant inactivity and by consent, each rule with its own filters for job location, conflicts resolved by the latest retention date, active stages exempt, and a per-candidate compliance report with "audit-ready documentation". Missing on the harder questions: we found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, candidate self-service, consent expiry with automated re-consent, or how deletion propagates to backups and connected job boards. 8 7 3 4
AI screening transparency & control
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether any automated ranking, matching, parsing or rejection is disclosed, explained and switchable — recruitment is a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, and an undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI matching or scoring is marketed with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off.
3 — AI features are described as a benefit, with a general assurance that humans decide, but no documentation of inputs, no per-feature switch and no model or provider named.
5 — Each AI feature is described with its purpose and inputs, can be disabled per account, never rejects a candidate without a human action, and the model provider or subprocessor is named.
8 — AI outputs are shown with their reasoning to the recruiter, candidates are informed when AI is used, protected attributes are stated to be excluded, EU processing is available for the AI features, and the vendor publishes its EU AI Act position.
10 — The vendor treats recruitment AI as the high-risk system the law says it is: documentation a works council can base an agreement on, bias testing described and repeated, logs of every AI-assisted decision retained for audit, and every AI feature off by default until the customer enables it.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
AI-assisted application review, talent rediscovery, enhanced resume parsing and a candidate assistant are switched on feature by feature by the customer in organization opt-in settings, and the terms state AI features are enabled by the customer — that is the switch-off control I need before any works council conversation. We found no public information on what the application review actually evaluates, which model or provider runs it, whether a rejection can happen without a human action, or any published EU AI Act position or bias testing, which keeps me from explaining a score to a candidate or a council. 2 4 10
The Employer Branding Manager
The AI features are opt-in, enabled through an admin setting where you turn on some or all of them, and there is dedicated documentation for AI-assisted application review — better than a switch I cannot find. But we found no public information on what each feature evaluates, on a human action before any automated rejection, on the model provider behind CV parsing and screening, or on any EU AI Act position, which is the first thing my works council would ask. 4 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The AI features are individually named and explicitly opt-in through organisation setup, with credit allowances quantified per plan, which is more than a benefit blurb. We found no public information on what AI-assisted application review evaluates, whether a rejection can occur without a human action, whether candidates are informed, and no model provider is named — a works council has nothing to base an agreement on. 10 4 2
The Works Council Advocate
AI-assisted application review, enhanced resume parsing, fraud detection and talent rediscovery are opt-in from admin settings and can be enabled individually — nothing runs until the customer turns it on, which is exactly the switch-off control we would demand. But we found no public information on what the review evaluates, which model provider or subprocessor runs it, or where that processing happens, while the privacy policy states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States; without inputs and provider named, no Betriebsvereinbarung can be written on this. 10 4 3
The HR IT Integrator
The AI features are named one by one — assisted application review, candidate assistant, notetaker, talent rediscovery, resume parsing — and they are opt-in, enabled under Opt-In Features by the customer's admin, which is the off-by-default posture I want before any co-determination talk. What the captured pages give me is names, not mechanics: we found no public information on the inputs each feature evaluates, the model provider or subprocessor behind them, whether a human action is required before a candidate is rejected, or a published EU AI Act position. 10 9 4
The Skeptic
Every AI feature is opt-in and granular — an admin enables "some or all" from an Opt-In Features screen — and consumption is metered through published AI credits per plan, which is more control than this category usually shows. But the descriptions stop at feature names: we found no public information on the inputs each feature evaluates, the model or provider behind them, whether a human confirms any rejection, or the vendor's EU AI Act position. Recruitment AI is high-risk under the law, and nothing captured is documented to that standard. 10 4 2 9
HR handover, integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The hire does not end in the ATS: handover to the HR system and payroll, identity and calendar integration, e-signature for contracts, and an API a team can build on.
0 — No integrations and no API; a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system.
3 — A CSV export and an email integration, with a partner marketplace that names no German HR or payroll systems.
5 — A documented API, calendar and video-interview integration, and a named handover to at least one HR system common in DACH (e.g. Personio, DATEV-connected systems, SAP SuccessFactors).
8 — Maintained integrations with several named HR systems carrying the hire's data without retyping, SSO and SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, and an API with published limits.
10 — Integration is designed rather than bolted on: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, handover that carries documents and consent status into the HR record, deletion that propagates to connected systems, and the vendor maintaining the German integrations itself.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
There is a documented developers' API with regenerable access keys, single sign-on via SAML and OIDC, integrations that are opt-in and can be disabled at any time, and a named Workday HRIS integration configured through Workday APIs. We found no public information on handover to HR or payroll systems common in DACH such as Personio, DATEV-connected or SAP systems, nor on SCIM, e-signature for offers and contracts, webhooks, or published API limits. 1 5 11
The Employer Branding Manager
There is an API with regenerable access keys, a broad integration catalogue, single sign-on via SAML and OIDC, and a named Workday HRIS integration configured through Workday APIs; the pricing page states plainly "Do you charge for integrations? No." We found no public information on a handover to HR systems common in DACH such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, on e-signature for offers and contracts, or on published API limits. 2 5 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
A documented API with regenerable access keys, SSO via SAML and OIDC, opt-in OAuth integrations that can be disabled at any time, and a maintained Workday HRIS integration with its own setup guide give a real handover path. We found no public information on SCIM, e-signature for contracts, webhooks, published API limits, or any HR or payroll system common in DACH, and nothing on whether the handover carries consent status into the HR record. 5 11 12 1
The Works Council Advocate
A developer API is documented with regenerable access keys, a Workday HRIS handover is described as configured through Workday APIs, and single sign-on via SAML and OIDC is stated. We found no public information on e-signature for contracts, SCIM, webhooks, published API limits, or whether the handover carries documents and consent status into the HR record — for internal candidates especially, that leakage question stays open. 11 5 12
The HR IT Integrator
There is a documented RPC API with regenerable access keys, SSO through SAML and OIDC with nothing in the captured pages tying it to a top tier, and integrations that authenticate via OAuth, are opt-in, disablable, and explicitly free of charge — the plumbing an integrator wants. The Workday HRIS handover is documented on the vendor's own docs site, which is who I want maintaining it, and migration tooling for Greenhouse, Lever and SmartRecruiters is published. We found no public information on SCIM, webhooks, published API limits, e-signature for offers and contracts, or a named handover to Personio, SAP SuccessFactors or DATEV-connected systems. 5 11 12 2 1
The Skeptic
There is a documented API with regenerable access keys, SSO via SAML and OIDC, OAuth integrations the customer enables and can disable at any time, and a named Workday HRIS integration configured through Workday's APIs. We found no public information on German HR or payroll systems such as Personio or DATEV-connected tools, on e-signature, SCIM or webhooks, and no published API limits. Handover is evidenced for exactly one HR system, and it is an American one. 11 5 12 2
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where applicant data lives, who the contracting entity is, who the subprocessors are — including the job boards, CV parsers and AI providers the system passes CVs to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted higher here than in categories holding the customer's own data, because every record belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and CV parsing or AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or CV parsing and AI features run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — parsing, AI, email delivery — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including parsing and AI providers, and a DPA that covers applicant data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, certification published, and the AI and CV-parsing features run within the EU on providers the customer can see.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
Ashby, Inc. is a US company governed by California law, the privacy policy states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, and hosting sits on Amazon Web Services with no region stated for our applicants' files. The only European-facing facts visible are an EU representative in Hamburg and Data Privacy Framework certifications, which do not change where data is processed; we found no public information on where resume parsing or the AI features run, and the subprocessor list sits in a Trust Centre page we could not review. 3 4 5
The Employer Branding Manager
The contracting entity is Ashby, Inc. of San Francisco under California law, hosting is on Amazon Web Services with no region stated, and the privacy policy itself acknowledges that personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States. The sub-processor list is said to live in an Ashby Trust Centre, and we found no public information on where CV parsing or the AI features run. The DPF certification and the Hamburg-based EU representative are transfer paperwork, not European data. 3 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
Ashby, Inc. is a Delaware corporation contracting under California law, the privacy policy states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States, and we found no public information on hosting location beyond AWS. The subprocessor list sits in a Trust Centre page the captured pages do not show, so I cannot see who the CV parser or AI providers are — an EU representative in Hamburg and the Data Privacy Framework claim are the only European elements, while every applicant CV belongs to someone who never chose this vendor. 4 3 5
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Ashby, Inc., a US corporation under California law with venue in San Francisco, and the privacy policy states personal information may be transferred to and processed in the United States. Hosting on Amazon Web Services is named with no region stated, and the full subprocessor list sits behind a Trust Centre page these captures do not show, so which boards, parsers and AI providers receive applicant CVs cannot be checked — every record here belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor. 4 3 5
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Ashby, Inc., a Delaware corporation under California law, hosting is on Amazon Web Services with the location unstated and transfers to the United States acknowledged, and where the resume parsing and AI features run is not said anywhere I can see. The captured mitigations are Data Privacy Framework certification, an EU representative in Hamburg and Swiss and UK representatives, while the subprocessor list is referenced to a Trust Centre page whose contents are not among these captures. Applicant CVs sit in a US Cloud Act-exposed chain, which for data belonging to people who never chose this vendor is close to the bottom of the scale. 4 5 3
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Ashby, Inc., a Delaware corporation under California law with San Francisco addresses, the privacy policy states personal information "may be transferred to and processed in the United States", hosting is on Amazon Web Services with no region stated, and the privacy policy points to a Trust Centre page for the full subprocessor list that the captured pages give no details on — Stripe is the only provider named. EU, Swiss and UK representatives and DPF certification exist, but those describe a US processor, not EU residency. For applicant records belonging to people who never chose this vendor, nothing European is evidenced. 4 3 5
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing model (per employee, per open job, per recruiter seat), job-board posting costs, add-ons for AI, career page or integrations, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (employees, jobs, seats) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (paid job-board postings, AI features, integrations, extra seats) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, job-board posting costs or the booking model stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given company size, number of open roles and recruiter seats, with every add-on, posting package and overage published.
The Talent Acquisition Lead
The captured pricing page is unusually open about structure — pricing by company size at purchase rather than seats, one price across the whole platform, no charge for integrations, a 10% discount for annual commitments, and AI credit and SMS allowances per plan — but it shows no price figure for any tier, with the middle plan at "Get in Touch" and a custom pricing model above 100 individuals in the workforce. My annual invoice cannot be computed from public pages, and enterprise implementation is priced separately without a figure. 2 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The pricing page gives me the model — startup pricing based on company size at purchase rather than seats, a "10% discount for annual commitments", no module fees, free integrations, and AI credits and SMS quotas per tier — but no price figure at all: Plus says "Get in Touch", organizations above 100 employees move to a custom pricing model, and the Advanced Scheduling and AI Notetaker add-ons are named without prices. We found no public information on job-board posting costs, so my annual invoice is not computable from the public pages; the terms state the fee is exclusive of taxes and no refunds are given. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing model is stated openly — based on company size at purchase rather than seats, a 10% discount for annual commitments, taxes exclusive of the fee, integrations at no charge — yet the captured pages show no price figure for any plan: the Plus plan says "Get in Touch" and organisations above 100 employees move to a custom pricing model. Add-on prices for Advanced Scheduling and the AI Notetaker are not shown either, so a buyer cannot compute an annual invoice from public pages. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
The tiers are named and the basis is described — company size at purchase rather than seats, usage and commitment for Plus — but no price figure is published for any tier; Plus says "Get in Touch" and organisations above 100 employees move to a custom pricing model. From these pages alone no buyer can compute an annual invoice, and we found no public information on add-on prices, job-board posting costs, or the minimum term. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
The pricing model is described with unusual care — one price for the whole platform across ATS, CRM, scheduling and analytics, based on company size, usage and commitment, 10% off annual plans, included AI credits and SMS quotas per plan, no integration charges, and subscription fees stated as exclusive of taxes. But not one price figure appears in the captured pages: the Plus plan says Get in Touch, everything above 100 employees moves to a custom model, and the add-ons are named without prices. A buyer can describe the invoice shape but cannot compute it. 2 4
The Skeptic
The pricing page is unusually open about the model — company size, usage and commitment, not seats — and about inclusions: "2,500 credits per seat per year" on Plus, SMS limits per plan, no charge for integrations, no module fees, 10% off annual commitment, and a subscription fee stated as exclusive of taxes. But we found no public price figure for any tier — Plus says "Get in Touch", above 100 employees moves to custom pricing — and no public information on job-board posting costs or the minimum term. The model is transparent; the invoice is not computable from these pages. 2 4 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in US | 0/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 5 Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Stripe is likewise named for payment processing in the same security page, an additional US-headquartered provider, and the privacy policy points to a full sub-processor list in an Ashby Trust Centre page that is not among these excerpts.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 101 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 12 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.ashbyhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.ashbyhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.ashbyhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.ashbyhq.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page www.ashbyhq.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.ashbyhq.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →