Recruiting
Lever
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Lever, Inc. · www.lever.co
Compare with Greenhouse → 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
Lever, Inc., a San Francisco company in the Employ Inc. group, sells an ATS and CRM in one platform with out-of-the-box dashboards, AI-powered matching, AI resume screening, unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries, and AI fraud signals. Strongest scores came on integrations and handover: the terms promise API export of customer data at any time during the term, customer-granted access to email providers and LinkedIn, and third-party API interoperability, though no named HR or payroll system appears. Candidate pipeline reflects reporting strength, with no public information on scorecards or a record of who decided what; applicant data governance rests on contract-end deletion alone. Weakest is sovereignty, scored 0 throughout: contracting under California law with binding arbitration in San Francisco, and no public information on hosting, data residency, or subprocessors. Job distribution sits at 0-1. Judges genuinely split on AI screening control: some credited features named with stated purposes; others refused credit absent disclosure of what the models evaluate or how to switch them off. Pricing is not published; fees are invoiced annually, non-cancellable and non-refundable.
Speaks for it
- ATS and CRM combined in one platform, covering sourcing, nurturing and hiring without toggling between tools.
- Out-of-the-box dashboards and customizable reports connect hiring activity to pipeline health and business impact.
- The terms promise tools to pull customer data via API at any time during the term.
- The terms promise prompt deletion of customer data after the term ends, in accordance with Lever's data retention policy.
- The terms state the customer retains all rights, title and interest in its customer data.
Held against it
- Contracting entity is Lever, Inc. of San Francisco under California law, with binding arbitration in San Francisco, and privacy documents sit with the Employ Inc. parent.
- We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, or a subprocessor list, including where AI screening and CV processing run.
- We found no public information on job-board distribution, a career page, or the application form and its mobile experience.
- AI screening is marketed purely as a benefit, with no public statement of what the models evaluate, where they run, who the provider is, or whether each feature can be switched off.
- The only retention commitment found is deletion of customer data at contract end; we found no public information on deletion after rejection, talent-pool consent for CRM nurturing, or a view-access log.
Best for
- You want sourcing, nurturing and hiring managed in a single ATS-and-CRM platform.
- You need contractually promised API export of your customer data at any time during the term.
- Your team wants to grant the tool access to its own email providers and LinkedIn accounts for sourcing.
- You want contract terms that state you retain all rights, title and interest in your customer data.
Avoid if
- You must be able to tell a works council or applicants where their data is hosted and which subprocessors, including the AI providers, can see it.
- You need to explain what the AI screening evaluates to candidates or a works council, or to switch individual AI features off.
- You need a hire handed over directly to a named HR or payroll system rather than via API export.
- You need rejected applicants' data deleted after a set period — the captured commitment covers deletion only after the contract term.
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 captured pages describe a unified ATS and CRM with out-of-the-box dashboards and "pipeline health" reporting, but I found no public information on pipeline stages per job, structured scorecards, hiring-manager access, or any record of who decided what. Marketing copy cannot make a hiring decision defensible to a candidate, and nothing here shows how a decision would be documented. 2
The Employer Branding Manager
The pages describe an ATS and CRM in one with unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries plus out-of-the-box pipeline reporting, which is more than a status inbox. But we found no public information on configurable stages per job, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages describe an ATS and CRM in one platform with out-of-the-box dashboards and customizable reports on pipeline health and hiring activity. We found no public information on configurable stages per job, structured scorecards, hiring-manager permissions, interview scheduling, or any record of who made each stage change — the attribution an employer needs when a rejected applicant takes an AGG dispute. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
The product is marketed as a combined ATS and CRM with dashboards, pipeline-health reporting and AI interview transcripts that streamline feedback and decision-making, but we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access limited to their own vacancies, structured scorecards, or a record of who decided what. For co-determination purposes nothing here evidences a documented decision trail, and a per-candidate history export for an AGG dispute is not in evidence either. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
An ATS and CRM in one platform with out-of-the-box dashboards on pipeline health is evidenced, which is more than a bare inbox. But we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager permissions, structured scorecards, interview scheduling, or any record of who decided what — the audit trail is the part I care about, and nothing captured shows one. 2
The Skeptic
The captured pages present a unified ATS and CRM with out-of-the-box dashboards, custom reports and AI interview summaries said to streamline feedback and decision-making. We found no public information on configurable stages per job, hiring-manager access limits, structured scorecards, or any record of who made which decision. 1 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
I found no public information on job-board distribution, a career page, or the application process — not even a free aggregator feed, let alone the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major German paid board. I cannot tell my hiring managers how or where a vacancy would reach candidates from anything captured. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
My entire spend sits in this criterion and none of it is in evidence: we found no public information on a career page, job-board distribution, Google for Jobs markup, mobile application, or whether candidates can apply without an account. The pages describe CRM sourcing and AI features, not how a vacancy actually reaches the German market. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on multiposting to job boards, a hosted career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the application form and its mobile experience; the closest facts are a CRM marketed for sourcing and nurturing and customer-granted access to LinkedIn and email accounts. A German buyer cannot see from these captures whether a vacancy reaches the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or any paid board. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on job-board distribution, a career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the application form and its mobile usability — neither the Bundesagentur für Arbeit nor any German board is named on the captured pages. I cannot co-determine a questionnaire on candidate experience from silence, so I score at the floor for absence. 1 2
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pages describe sourcing and nurturing inside the platform only. We found no public information on job-board multiposting, a career page, Google for Jobs markup, or the application form and its mobile experience, so distribution is entirely unevidenced. 1 2
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
The terms commit to deleting customer data after the contract ends "in accordance with Lever's data retention policy" and grant a one-time retrieval right, but I found no public information on configurable retention after rejection, talent-pool consent, or how an applicant's access or erasure request is handled. Deletion at contract end is not applicant governance, and the retention policy itself was not captured. 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The only retention statement is contractual: after the term ends, customer data will be promptly deleted in accordance with Lever's data retention policy, with one electronic retrieval right per contract. We found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection, configurable deadlines, talent-pool consent, data-subject request handling, or access logging — the pieces my company is liable for. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The only retention commitment we found is deletion of customer data after the contract term, promptly and in line with Lever's own retention policy — we found no public information on automatic deletion after a rejection, on consent recorded and expiring for the talent-pool-style CRM storage marketed for nurturing candidates, or on any log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. The employer carries that liability alone on this evidence. 4 2 3
The Works Council Advocate
The only retention statement is contractual: after the term ends, customer data "will no longer be accessible and will be promptly deleted in accordance with Lever's data retention policy" — that protects the employer at contract exit, not the rejected applicant on a deadline. We found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable period post-rejection, on talent-pool consent with expiry for the actively marketed CRM nurturing, on data-subject request handling, or on a log of who viewed an applicant file. 4 2
The HR IT Integrator
The terms commit to deleting customer data after the contract term and to API export during it — contract-end hygiene, not applicant governance. We found no public information on deletion deadlines after rejection, talent-pool consent with expiry, a documented answer to an access or erasure request, or any log of who viewed an applicant file. 3 4
The Skeptic
Deletion is promised only after the term ends, in accordance with a retention policy the captured pages do not publish, and an API export exists as a way out. We found no public information on a configurable deletion deadline after rejection, and although the product includes a CRM for nurturing people who were not hired, no consent step for that storage is evidenced — likewise nothing on data-subject requests or a view-access log. 2 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 is marketed hard — "automatically prioritize top candidates with AI-powered matching", AI resume screening, AI fraud flags, unlimited AI interview transcripts — with no statement of what is evaluated, where it runs, whether it can be turned off, or who the model provider is. An automatic ranking I cannot explain to a candidate or a works council is exactly what I refuse to put my name on, and the marketing word "transparency" is not disclosure. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
AI matching that automatically prioritizes top candidates and AI resume screening are marketed with a transparency claim, yet we found no public information on what the models evaluate, where they run, the provider behind them, whether any feature can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position. An unexplained score next to a candidate's name is precisely what I cannot take to a works council. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
AI matching is marketed as automatically prioritizing top candidates, alongside AI resume screening, unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries, and AI fraud signals — and we found no public information on what these systems evaluate, where they run, which model provider processes the CVs, whether protected attributes are excluded, or whether any feature can be switched off. An undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is a co-determination matter, and nothing here would support a works council agreement. 2 1
The Works Council Advocate
AI screening that automatically prioritizes top candidates and AI resume screening are marketed, yet we found no public information on what the matching evaluates, where it runs, which model provider processes the CVs, or whether each feature can be disabled per account. A ranking whose inputs are undocumented and whose switch is unstated is precisely the co-determination case for recruitment AI under the EU AI Act; the features are individually named with stated purposes, which is why I sit just above the floor. 2 1
The HR IT Integrator
AI matching that will "Automatically prioritize top candidates", plus resume screening, interview transcripts and fraud flags, is marketed purely as a benefit. There is no statement of what the models evaluate, no per-feature switch, no named model provider, and no EU AI Act position — not even a general assurance that a human decides. 1 2
The Skeptic
AI-powered matching, resume screening, fraud signals and unlimited transcripts are marketed purely as benefits — the copy even promises to "increase transparency" — but we found no public information on what the models evaluate, whether each feature can be switched off, who the model provider is, or whether candidates are informed. Not even a general assurance that humans decide appears in the captured pages. 1 2
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
The terms confirm an API to pull customer data at any time, a connection to the customer's own email providers and LinkedIn, and a general clause that third-party products interoperate via APIs — but no named HR or payroll system, no calendar or e-signature integration, and no German handover such as Personio or DATEV. A hired candidate would be exported and retyped into the HR system. 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The terms promise API tools to pull our data at any time, let us connect email providers and LinkedIn, and reference third-party products interoperating via APIs — an export-and-email level of handover. We found no public information on a connection to any HR or payroll system common in DACH, calendar or video integration, SSO, or e-signature. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The terms commit to tools for pulling customer data via API and recognise third-party products interoperating via APIs, and the customer can grant access to its own email and LinkedIn accounts. We found no public information on a handover to any named HR or payroll system, calendar or video integration, SSO, e-signature, or webhook support — on this evidence a hire ends in an export rather than a handover. 4
The Works Council Advocate
An API export of all customer data is contractually promised, and the customer may grant Lever access to its own email providers and LinkedIn accounts — but that is the flow into Lever, not the handover of a hire into the HR system and payroll. We found no public information on maintained integrations with systems common in DACH, SSO, e-signature for offers and contracts, or webhooks with published limits, and nothing on whether documents or consent status travel into the personnel record. 4 2
The HR IT Integrator
The terms confirm API-based export of customer data during the term and customer-controlled access to email providers and LinkedIn — export-plus-email level. We found no public information on a documented developer API with published limits, SSO or SCIM, calendar, video or e-signature integration, webhooks, or a handover to Personio, DATEV-connected or SAP systems — and nothing on who would maintain such a connection, which is how I judge every integration. 4
The Skeptic
The terms let a customer connect LinkedIn and email accounts and promise tools to pull data out via API, but we found no public information on a documented developer API with published limits, SSO, e-signature, webhooks, or any handover to a named HR or payroll system — German ones included. The pricing copy's own selling point is that ATS and CRM sit together so "no integrations or toggling" are required, which says nothing about the hire's onward journey. 2 4
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 contracting entity is Lever, Inc. of San Francisco under California law with binding arbitration in San Francisco, part of Employ Inc.; hosting location is unstated, no subprocessor list appears in anything captured, and the location of the AI matching and transcript processing is unstated. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose a US vendor, and I found no public information addressing that. 2 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
Lever, Inc. of San Francisco is the contracting party under California law with binding arbitration in San Francisco, and we found no public information on hosting location or a single subprocessor — including where the AI screening and CV processing run. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, which makes this the hardest stop for me. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
Lever, Inc. of San Francisco, part of Employ Inc., contracts under California law with disputes settled by arbitration in San Francisco. We found no public information on hosting location, data residency, or a subprocessor list naming the CV parser or AI provider — so a German employer could not tell its applicants where their CVs sit or who else sees them. 4 3
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is Lever, Inc. of San Francisco under California law, with binding arbitration in San Francisco, inside the Employ Inc. group; we found no public information on data residency, hosting, or a subprocessor list covering the AI providers and CV processing. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, so an American jurisdiction over their files with an unstated hosting location is not something a works council can agree to — I score at the floor. 4 3 2
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Lever, Inc. of San Francisco under California law, with disputes settled by arbitration in San Francisco. We found no public information on hosting location, a subprocessor list, or where the AI resume screening processes CVs — for a system holding third parties' data, that is the bottom of the scale. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Lever, Inc. of 1125 Mission Street, San Francisco, under California law with disputes settled by binding arbitration in San Francisco, and the privacy documents sit with the US parent Employ Inc. Hosting location, a subprocessor list and where the AI or CV parsing runs are all unstated on the captured pages, so every record of a third-party applicant sits on an unevidenced chain. 3 4
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
The captured pricing page lists features — AI transcripts, screening, dashboards — but no price figures at all, and the terms place every fee in an Order Form, invoiced annually, non-cancellable, non-refundable, exclusive of taxes, with automatic one-year renewal. The commercial mechanics are public, but the annual invoice is not computable from any of it. 2 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The terms give me the mechanics — fees invoiced annually on the Order Form, net 30, non-cancellable and non-refundable, auto-renewing one year at a time, amounts exclusive of VAT — but the public pages show no price, no tier and no basis in jobs, seats or employees. I cannot compute even a ballpark annual invoice, and there is no word on what a job-board posting would add to the bill. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
The public commercial terms cover mechanics only: annual invoicing by default, payment within thirty days, fees non-cancellable and non-refundable, automatic one-year renewal, and amounts exclusive of taxes. Every actual figure sits in an Order Form — we found no public price, tier structure, or pricing basis on the captured pricing page, so the real annual cost is unknowable from public material. 4 2
The Works Council Advocate
The captured pricing page shows feature bundles while we found no public prices and no statement of the pricing basis — seats, jobs or employees. The contract does publish payment mechanics — fees invoiced annually, payment thirty (30) days after electronic delivery of the invoice, fees non-cancellable and non-refundable, amounts "exclusive of" taxes, automatic one-year renewal — so the terms of payment are public while the invoice amount is not computable from these pages and a buyer still needs a sales conversation. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
The captured pricing page lists features and support channels but no figures, while the terms put every fee on an annual Order Form that auto-renews in one-year periods, with taxes extra and fees non-cancellable and non-refundable. From the public pages alone a buyer cannot derive any annual cost. 2 4
The Skeptic
No tier price or pricing basis appears on the captured pricing page — it describes feature bundles such as "Unlimited AI interview transcripts and summaries" — so the amount remains a sales conversation. The terms do publish the invoice mechanics: fees invoiced annually by default, payable thirty days after delivery, exclusive of taxes, non-cancellable and non-refundable, auto-renewing for one-year periods. 2 4
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 22 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.
- 13 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
- 8 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
- 4 legal 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
- 4 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
- 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 1 support 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
- 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.lever.co Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.lever.co Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.employinc.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.lever.co Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Multiposting, career page & candidate experience — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Retention, deletion & talent-pool consent — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap help.lever.co Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →