whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Recruiting

Bullhorn

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Bullhorn, Inc. · www.bullhorn.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Bullhorn: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Bullhorn: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Bullhorn at a glance

Vendor
Bullhorn, Inc.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Bullhorn 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Bullhorn is an AI recruitment platform combining ATS and CRM for staffing and recruitment agencies from Bullhorn, Inc., founder-led and headquartered in Boston. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources

Bullhorn alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Works Council Advocate

Weighted verdict

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.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Works Council Advocate

Panel median The Works Council Advocate This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Works Council Advocate
Applicant management & hiring workflow 1.5 of 5 1 of 5
Multiposting, career page & candidate experience 2 of 5 1.5 of 5
Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent 1.5 of 5 1.5 of 5
AI screening transparency & control 3 of 5 3 of 5
HR handover, integrations & API 2 of 5 2 of 5
European sovereignty 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5

Applicant management & hiring workflow

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

The captured pages show an applicant tracking and CRM system that tracks activity from résumé to hire, syncs Gmail or Outlook both ways, and lets recruiters edit candidate records and notes on a phone. We found no public information on pipeline stages per job, on structured scorecards or interview kits, on limiting a hiring manager's view to their own vacancies, or on any history showing who changed a candidate's stage. A process whose decisions are not documented is not one a works council can co-determine on. 2 3 11

Report an error

Multiposting, career page & candidate experience

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

Multiposting runs through a marketplace partner that publishes an ad to a job portal of the recruiter's choice with one click, and jobs flow to Indeed via an XML feed, with paid Indeed promotion available and apply from any device. No German board is named anywhere — the partner page speaks only of a portal of one's choice — and we found no public information on a branded career page, Google for Jobs markup, or on candidates seeing their own status and withdrawing themselves. 4 5

Report an error

Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

The privacy commitment states customers can access, rectify, erase and restrict processing within the services, which is a manual deletion path, and an internal team monitors data protection law. We found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable deadline, on talent-pool consent with expiry, or on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant's file — the retention obligation the employer carries is left entirely to the customer's hands. 6 7

Report an error

AI screening transparency & control

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

The AI ranking is disclosed with purpose and inputs — candidates ranked by likelihood of being hired using over 26 years of placement data — with gender, age and ethnicity stated to be excluded from search and ranking, human review required before any decision, independent third-party bias assessments described, and a published responsible-AI statement plus signature of the EU AI Pact. But we found no public information on a per-account switch to disable any AI feature, on the model provider being named, or on candidates being informed when AI screens them. The always-on digital workers that source, screen and run outreach around the clock are precisely the sort of automation a works council must be able to see into and switch off, and no such control is evidenced. 1 2 8 9

Report an error

HR handover, integrations & API

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

There is a genuinely open API with published terms — an annual platform fee, 200,000 calls per month and overage charges — plus a pre-integrated marketplace, a two-way Gmail/Outlook sync, and an onboarding module handling document packages and right-to-work checks. We found no public information on a handover to any HR or payroll system common in DACH, on single sign-on, or on e-signature for offers; the marketplace entries captured are distribution tools, not HR systems. 1 2 10 11

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

The contracting entity is Bullhorn, Inc. of Boston, and we found no public information on where applicant data is hosted or on any subprocessor list covering the job boards, parsing or AI providers in the chain; the AI is said to run inside the Bullhorn environment, but the location of that environment is not stated. The only European-facing safeguards captured are Standard Contractual Clauses within the Bullhorn group and a German-language GDPR declaration, so every applicant's record sits with a US entity on a chain we cannot see. 1 6 7 8

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

The Works Council Advocate

Two tier prices are public with a clear basis — Starter at $99 per user per month and Core at $165 per user per month — but Pro and Max are quote-based, and Middle Office, Onboarding and the Recruitment Cloud are separately quoted. We found no public information on the amount of the annual API platform fee, on job-board posting costs beyond the existence of paid Indeed promotion, on a minimum term, or on VAT treatment, so the real annual invoice cannot be computed from the public pages. 1 5 10

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Ownership Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Bullhorn

Is Bullhorn European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Bullhorn is based.

Where does Bullhorn store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

Does Bullhorn have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Bullhorn?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Recruitee (3.5/5), softgarden (3/5) and Pinpoint (3/5) highest among the other 29 Recruiting products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Recruitee (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Bullhorn alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about Bullhorn? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (11)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.bullhorn.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →