whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Recruiting

Greenhouse

Rest of world 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 Greenhouse Software, Inc. · www.greenhouse.com

Compare with Lever → Compare with Workable → 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 Employer Branding Manager

Weighted verdict

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.

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

Scored by The Employer Branding Manager

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 Employer Branding Manager

Structured hiring is the vendor's founding pitch, and the entry plan carries structured interview kits and scorecards, scheduling, reporting and CRM, with an audit log and enterprise data configuration reserved for the top tier. What I could not find is the accountability layer: no evidence of hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, approval steps for offers, or a per-candidate history of who changed a stage — and the audit trail only appears in the top plan. A strong core, but the record of who decided what sits above the entry tier. 1 2

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 Employer Branding Manager

The one candidate-facing piece the pages show is MyGreenhouse, a portal with real-time updates and surfaced opportunities where candidates can opt out of sharing their profile — but a portal that stores job preferences and search criteria reads like an account, not a phone-first application without one. We found no public information on a hosted career page, distribution to German job boards, Google for Jobs markup, or cost and applicants per channel; for someone who books StepStone postings, nothing here is bookable. 1 3

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 Employer Branding Manager

A data-subject request portal exists and the privacy policy commits to delete or anonymise personal information once there is no ongoing business need, but no automatic, configurable deadline after rejection appears on the captured pages. The CRM sits in the entry plan while we found no public information on recorded consent for talent-pool storage, consent expiry, or a log of who viewed an applicant file. The only firm deletion figure I can cite is ninety days after contract termination, which protects the customer relationship, not the rejected applicant. 2 3 4

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 Employer Branding Manager

AI is marketed hard — AI Notetaker in the entry plan, Voice AI, AI-powered report filters, and Real Talent matching, fraud detection and identity verification — and governance artefacts exist: published AI principles, a bias audit statement, AI Terms written into the contract, and the master agreement's statement that the customer remains solely responsible for all hiring decisions. We found no public information on the inputs each feature evaluates, a per-feature switch, a named model provider, candidates being informed when AI is used, or an EU AI Act position. That is a benefit slide rather than something a works council could base an agreement on, and the privacy policy additionally reserves training of AI models on personal information including application materials. 1 2 3 4

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 Employer Branding Manager

The pages show a genuine API with a free export key for the whole term, single sign-on in the entry plan, a business-intelligence connector one tier up, a developer sandbox at the top, and a claim of hundreds of pre-built integrations with no names attached. No HR or payroll system common in DACH is named on the captured pages, and we found no public information on e-signature, SCIM or webhooks, while API limits and fees sit in the order form rather than on public pages. There is an onboarding product to carry the hire onward, but I cannot tell from what is published what it connects to. 1 2 4

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 Employer Branding Manager

The contracting entity is Greenhouse Software, Inc. of New York under New York law and FTC enforcement, the privacy policy says processing may happen in any of the countries its providers operate in, and we found no public information on hosting location, an EU option, or a subprocessor list covering the AI and parsing pieces. The published safeguards for applicant CVs crossing the Atlantic are the Data Privacy Framework certification and a data processing addendum. For records belonging to people who never chose this vendor, that is close to the bottom of what I can accept. 3 4

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 Employer Branding Manager

The pricing page names three plans — Core, Plus and Pro — and shows which features sit in each, while the contract discloses the basis: employee headcount including affiliates, fees due in advance and non-cancelable and non-refundable, automatic one-year renewal with thirty days' cancellation notice, taxes excluded, and a reserved right to increase fees at renewal. No figure for any plan, job-board posting cost or add-on appears on the captured pages, so the annual invoice stays a sales conversation. I can describe the bill but not compute it — a headcount-based model without headcount-based prices tells a buyer nothing. 2 4

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 — uncited Report an error
Data residency Not determined — uncited Report an error
Subprocessors Not determined — uncited Report an error

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 Greenhouse? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.greenhouse.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.greenhouse.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.greenhouse.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.greenhouse.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.greenhouse.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →