Recruiting
easy.cruit
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by MRD GmbH · www.easycruit.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
The captured page describes EasyCruit (MRD GmbH) in a handful of sentences: an online recruitment solution for hiring managers and recruiters with automated screening and a collaborative review platform, recruitment support across departments, countries, languages and brands, and centralised control over candidate interactions. The clearest credit goes to candidate pipeline: recruiting and shared candidate review happen inside the tool. At the floor, AI screening control and integrations and handover sit at 0: screening is marketed with no public statement of what it evaluates or whether it can be switched off, and we found no public information on APIs, single sign-on or handover to HR or payroll. Scores split by a point on candidate pipeline 1-2, job distribution 0-1 and applicant data governance 0-1: higher marks credit hiring-manager focus, multinational claims and a published privacy policy; lower marks hold a marketing phrase, an uncaptured policy and an undocumented application path prove nothing. Sovereignty scores sit at 2; with no sovereignty attributes on record, the German vendor entity is the only European element named, and no public prices appear.
Speaks for it
- An online recruitment solution aimed at hiring managers as well as recruiters
- Names a collaborative review platform to swiftly evaluate candidates
- Publishes a privacy policy, the single governance item the rationales credit
- Claims recruitment support and centralised brand control across departments, countries, languages and brands
- Trades as MRD GmbH, which the rationales read as a German contracting entity
Held against it
- Markets automated screening with no public statement of what it evaluates, where it runs or whether it can be switched off — AI screening control scores sit at 0
- We found no public information on APIs, single sign-on, e-signature or handover to any HR or payroll system — integrations and handover scores sit at 0
- Publishes a privacy policy link whose contents are not captured, with no public information on retention deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging
- No sovereignty attributes on record; we found no public information on hosting location, subprocessors or a data-processing agreement
- We found no public information on a career page, multiposting or the application form — job distribution scores run 0-1
Best for
- You need an online recruitment tool that hiring managers and recruiters share, with collaborative candidate review as the core workflow
- You recruit across departments, countries, languages and brands and want centralised control of brand consistency in candidate interactions
- Your job-board distribution runs elsewhere and you are buying mainly for in-tool review of applicants
Avoid if
- You must explain an automated screening step to a works council or data-protection officer — the page markets automated screening and the bench found no public statement of its inputs, provider or a switch-off
- You need an attributable record of who decided what on each candidate — the captured process description stops at a collaborative review platform to swiftly evaluate candidates
- You contract only against a documented processing chain — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
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
The page positions this as an online solution for hiring managers and recruiters with a collaborative review platform, so recruiting clearly happens inside the tool. Beyond that I found no public information on pipeline stages, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what — nothing I could defend in a debrief, let alone a dispute. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The page names an online recruitment solution for hiring managers and recruiters with a collaborative review platform to swiftly evaluate candidates, which is the only fragment I can score. I found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The entire captured picture of the hiring workflow is one sentence about a collaborative review platform with automated screening. We found no public information on pipeline stages per vacancy, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any history of who moved an applicant's file and why; a decision that is not documented is one the employer cannot defend. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page describes an online solution for hiring managers and recruiters with a collaborative review platform to evaluate candidates, which is more than a private inbox. We found no public information on pipeline stages per vacancy, structured scorecards, which hiring manager may see which applicant, or any record of who decided what — and without an attributable decision record, no works council can assess a fair process. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The captured page describes an online recruitment solution for hiring managers and recruiters with a collaborative review platform, which is the only signal that hiring managers work in it at all. I found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling or any record of who decided what, so shared review exists as a marketing claim and nothing more. 1
The Skeptic
The one captured page promises a "collaborative review platform to swiftly evaluate candidates" and stops there: we found no public information on pipeline stages per vacancy, structured scorecards, hiring-manager permissions, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what. A marketing phrase does not document a decision. 1
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
I found no public information on a career page, multiposting, or any named German job boards, and nothing on how a candidate actually applies. The closest claim is recruitment support across countries and languages, which says nothing about distribution or the application form. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
I found no public information on job-board distribution, a hosted career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the application flow on a phone; the only adjacent claim is centralised control and uniformity of brand across candidate interactions. Nothing names a German board or an application without an account. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on a career page, multiposting to job boards for the German market, or the application process itself; the statement about support across countries, languages and brands concerns internal recruitment, not reaching candidates. Nothing captured about getting a vacancy in front of applicants can be credited here. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The page mentions recruitment across departments, countries, languages and brands, but we found no public information on a career page, multiposting to job boards for the German market, or the application form itself. How a vacancy reaches candidates, and whether an application survives a phone, is undocumented publicly. 1
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public information on a career page, multiposting or any job board, German or otherwise; nothing on the captured page addresses how a vacancy reaches candidates in the first place. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on a career page, multiposting to job boards, Google for Jobs markup, or an application form and its mobile behaviour. The page speaks of countries, languages and brands, but is silent on how a vacancy actually reaches candidates. 1
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
A privacy policy is available, which is where retention and deletion commitments would live, but no content on them is captured. I found no public information on automatic deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, or handling of access and erasure requests — the employer liability stays entirely with me. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
A privacy policy link exists, and that is as far as the evidence goes: I found no public information on automatic deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests, or access logging. There is nothing here I could hand a works council or a data-protection officer. 1
The Data Protection Officer
A privacy policy link is the only governance-related item captured; we found no public information on automatic deletion on a stated deadline after rejection, talent-pool consent or its expiry, handling of access or erasure requests, or any log of who opened an applicant's file. These are the people who never chose this vendor, and the single point is for the privacy policy being referenced at all. 1
The Works Council Advocate
A privacy policy is published, which is where retention and deletion rules would be found, but its content is not captured and we found no public information on automatic deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging. For the obligations the employer is liable for, nothing is evidenced. 1
The HR IT Integrator
Nothing is stated about retention, automatic deletion, talent-pool consent or handling data-subject requests, and the privacy policy link exists without its contents being in evidence. Governance of rejected applicants is entirely unevidenced. 1
The Skeptic
Nothing in the captured material states a retention period, a deletion deadline, a consent step for talent-pool storage, or a log of file access. A privacy-policy link exists, but its contents are not among the captured facts, so there is nothing to assess an access or erasure request against. 1
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
The page markets automated screening to 'swiftly evaluate candidates,' and that is the whole statement: no inputs, no model or provider, no per-feature switch, and nothing on whether a human sees the result. A score I cannot explain to a rejected candidate is precisely what I will not put in front of my works council. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
Automated screening is marketed as a benefit alongside the collaborative review platform, and I found no public information on what it evaluates, where it runs, who the model provider is, or whether it can be switched off. An automated system next to candidates with that level of disclosure is a co-determination problem, and the anchors put undisclosed screening at the bottom. 1
The Data Protection Officer
Automated screening is marketed in one sentence, and we found no public information on what it evaluates, where it runs, which model or provider sits behind it, or whether a customer can switch it off per feature. An undisclosed screen applied to thousands of CVs is exactly the high-risk case I must be able to explain to a works council, and nothing here can be explained. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor markets automated screening to swiftly evaluate candidates and gives no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be switched off — there is not even a general assurance that a human decides. An undisclosed automated evaluation of applicants is a co-determination matter, and here the answer to every control question is missing: no answer, no agreement. 1
The HR IT Integrator
Automated screening is marketed as a benefit, and I found no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether it can be turned off. For a works council facing a high-risk use under the EU AI Act, there is nothing here to base an agreement on. 1
The Skeptic
Automated screening is marketed — "includes automated screening" — with no statement of what it evaluates, where it runs, or whether a customer can switch it off. That is exactly the undisclosed score next to a candidate's name that a works council will ask about, and on this evidence there is no answer. 1
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
I found no public information on integrations, an API, calendar or e-signature, or any handover to a German HR or payroll system. On the captured page there is no described path for a hire to leave the tool, so the retyping would fall on my team of two. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
I found no public information on any integration, API, or handover to an HR or payroll system — no named DACH systems such as Personio or DATEV-connected tools, no calendar or SSO, no webhooks. As far as the public pages show, a hired candidate is retyped into the HR system by hand. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on handover to HR or payroll systems common in DACH, single sign-on, e-signature for contracts, webhooks or a public API. Release notes, a product portal and a YouTube channel are the only support references captured, and none of them describes an integration. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on an API, on handover to HR or payroll systems, on single sign-on or e-signature for contracts. Nothing on the captured pages shows what happens to a hired candidate's file, including whether an internal applicant's data could reach their personnel record. 1
The HR IT Integrator
On my home ground I found no public information on an API, SSO, calendar or video-interview integration, e-signature, webhooks or handover to any HR or payroll system, German or otherwise. As far as the evidence goes, a hire leaves this product as something someone retypes. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on integrations with HR or payroll systems, e-signature for contracts, single sign-on, or an API. On the captured evidence, whether a hire has to be retyped into the HR system is simply not addressed. 1
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
The vendor name suggests a German legal entity, but I found no statement of where applicant data is hosted — the only hosting-related text points to an external site — and no subprocessor list. Where the automated screening runs is equally unstated, which is not enough to contract on for data belonging to third parties. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The vendor is named as MRD GmbH and a privacy policy is available, which reads as a German contracting entity; but I found no public information on hosting location, a subprocessor list, or where automated screening and any CV processing run. An unexplained processing chain keeps this near the bottom despite the German entity name. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on where applicant data is hosted, no subprocessor list naming the CV parser or the AI provider behind the automated screening, and no certification; the only hosting-adjacent detail captured is a "More details" link handing off to ehratalentsolutions.com. The vendor appears under a German limited-liability name, the single European element visible — hosting, processors and the screening engine are all unrecorded. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor is named as MRD GmbH, which points to a European contracting entity, but we found no public information on hosting location, on subprocessors — including any parsing or AI providers behind the automated screening — or on a data processing agreement; the page itself defers details to a third site. Every applicant is a third party who never chose this vendor, and where their data is processed is undocumented. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity appears to be a German limited company, which keeps this off the absolute floor, but I found no public information on hosting, subprocessors, a data-processing agreement or where the automated screening runs. The independently collected sovereignty record is empty, which for a product holding third-party applicant data says a great deal. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: hosting location, the seat of the contracting entity beyond the vendor name, the subprocessor list, and where the automated screening processes CVs are all unstated. For a system whose records belong to third parties who never chose the vendor, that silence is itself the finding. 1
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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
No prices appear on the captured page: no tiers, no pricing model, no minimum term. Computing an annual cost from public information alone is impossible; everything would be a sales conversation. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
I found no public prices at all: no tiers, no pricing basis per job or recruiter seat, no job-board posting costs, and no minimum term. The real annual cost, and what a posting on a German board would add to the bill, is a pure sales conversation. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public pricing information at all — no pricing model, no tier prices or add-ons, no job-board posting costs and no minimum term. The "More details" handoff to ehratalentsolutions.com is the only link captured that could carry pricing, and nothing on the vendor's own page shows a price a buyer could use. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public prices at all — no tiers, no pricing basis, no minimum term, no posting or add-on costs. A buyer cannot begin to compute the annual cost from what is published. 1
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public prices at all: no tier, no pricing basis, no add-ons and no minimum term are named anywhere in the captured material. A buyer cannot compute even a rough annual cost. 1
The Skeptic
No price, tier, pricing basis, add-on or minimum term appears anywhere in the captured material; we found no public pricing at all. A buyer cannot begin to compute an invoice from these pages. 1
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (easycruit.com, easycruit.com/static/gdrive_privacypolicy.html). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (easycruit.com, easycruit.com/static/gdrive_privacypolicy.html). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (2)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.easycruit.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage easycruit.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →