Recruiting
Oleeo
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Oleeo Ltd · www.oleeo.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
Oleeo Ltd positions itself as "#1 Rated ATS Software & AI Add-Ons for Recruitment" with the speed claims "Hire within 3 days" and "Recruit 50% faster" and a cited 400+ organisations — but the bench judged from a single captured homepage. The weakest marks land on job distribution, applicant data governance, AI screening control and integrations and handover, each showing a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 0; the talent acquisition judge calls the applicant-data silence "disqualifying on its own". The relative highs are candidate pipeline and sovereignty, ranging from 0 to 1, where two of six judges — the HR IT integrator and the data protection officer — credited each a single point. That split is one of scaling, not of evidence: the written reasoning on both sides describes the same absence, namely no public information on pipeline stages, decision records, hosting location or subprocessors. On pricing, the only published commercial routes are a free consultation and a demo booking.
Speaks for it
- A free consultation and a demo booking are the published entry points
- The vendor's page claims the product adapts from corporate to high-volume hiring
- The vendor's page cites 400+ organisations hiring with its technology
- Candidate pipeline and sovereignty are the relative highs, each reaching at most 1
Held against it
- No public information on pipeline stages, decision records, or hiring-manager access for defending a decision in an AGG dispute
- No public information on retention, deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, or handling of access and erasure requests
- AI add-ons are marketed in the positioning with no statement of what they evaluate, where they run, or whether they can be switched off
- No public information on integrations, a documented API, SSO, or handover to an HR or payroll system
- No sovereignty attributes are on record — hosting location, the contracting entity's seat, and subprocessors are unstated on the captured pages
Best for
- You run a demo-first evaluation and want the speed claims — 'Hire within 3 days', 'Recruit 50% faster' — tested in person before any commitment
- You hire across corporate and high-volume settings and want to probe a product whose page claims it adapts to both
- You plan to use the free consultation to demand pipeline, AI and data-governance documentation, with the gaps recorded here as your question list
Avoid if
- You must show a works council what the AI evaluates and whether it can be switched off — the pages market AI add-ons with no such statement
- You need published retention, deletion and talent-pool consent terms before applicant data enters the system — the captured pages carry speed claims only
- You require a stated hosting location, contracting entity and subprocessor list before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your buying process needs published prices or tiers — the only commercial routes shown are a free consultation and a demo booking
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 homepage carries only speed claims — hire within 3 days, recruit 50% faster — and we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access, structured scorecards, or any record of who decided what. I cannot put a defensible hiring decision in front of a works council on claims like these. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The only hiring-workflow statements are speed slogans — "Hire within 3 days" and "Recruit 50% faster" — with nothing on how a vacancy moves through stages or who records a decision. We found no public information on pipelines per job, hiring-manager access, structured evaluation, interview scheduling or candidate communication. 1
The Data Protection Officer
The page sells speed — "Hire within 3 days", "Recruit 50% faster" — and positions the product as ATS software adaptable from corporate to high-volume hiring, but we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager permissions, scorecards, interview scheduling, or any history of who decided what. An employer who must defend a hiring decision in an AGG dispute has nothing published here to show the decision was attributed and reasoned. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The captured page markets only speed claims — "Hire within 3 days" and "Recruit 50% faster" — and we found no public information on pipeline stages, structured evaluation, hiring-manager access, or any record of who decided what. There is nothing here my committee could review on how hiring decisions are documented. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The captured page positions Oleeo as ATS software that "adapts from corporate to high-volume hiring", but I found no public information on pipeline stages, scorecards, hiring-manager access, scheduling or any record of who decided what. That is application tracking at its barest, not a documented decision process. 1
The Skeptic
The captured homepage sells speed — "Hire within 3 days", "Recruit 50% faster" — but we found no public information on pipeline stages per job, hiring-manager access, structured evaluation, or any record of who decided what. Marketing a faster process is not evidence of a documented one. 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
We found no public information on a career page, multiposting, or any named German job board; the only positioning is that the tool adapts from corporate to high-volume hiring. The German boards are my first question when I fill sixty roles a year, and the captured pages do not answer it. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
I buy an ATS for the career page and the channels behind it, and the captured page says nothing about either — only "adapts from corporate to high-volume hiring" and customer counts. We found no public information on a branded career page, German job-board distribution, Google for Jobs markup or a mobile application without an account. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on job-board distribution, a career page, or the application flow a candidate would see, including any German boards or Google for Jobs markup. Nothing in the captured pages lets a buyer judge how vacancies reach applicants or how applicants reach the system. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on a career page, German job-board distribution, Google for Jobs markup, or the application form candidates face. The page says the tool "adapts to everyone, from corporate to high-volume hiring", but nothing published shows how a vacancy reaches applicants. 1
The HR IT Integrator
I found no public information on a career page, multiposting or any job board, German or otherwise. The captured page carries speed claims only, so nothing evidences distribution beyond posting by hand elsewhere. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on job-board multiposting, a career page, or the application process; the homepage's claim that the tool "adapts from corporate to high-volume hiring" says nothing about 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
We found no public information on retention deadlines, automatic deletion, talent-pool consent, or how a candidate access or erasure request would be answered. Retention of applicant data is the liability I carry as the employer, so silence here is disqualifying on its own. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
Nothing on the captured page touches the subject, and no sovereignty attributes are on record either. We found no public information on retention periods, automatic deletion of rejected applicants, talent-pool consent or handling of access and erasure requests — the items my company is personally liable for. 1
The Data Protection Officer
On the criterion the employer is actually liable for, the captured pages are silent: we found no public information on deletion deadlines after rejection, talent-pool consent or its expiry, handling of access or erasure requests, or any log of who viewed or exported an applicant file. As far as published evidence goes, the data of people who never chose this vendor has no stated lifecycle at all. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on retention, automatic deletion, or talent-pool consent for the applicants who were not hired — and that is the liability the employer carries. Silence on candidate data leaves me nothing to co-determine on. 1
The HR IT Integrator
Nothing on the captured page speaks to retention, deletion, talent-pool consent, data-subject requests or access logging; I found no public information on any of it. With "400+ organisations" putting applicant data into the product, that is the liability item I cannot evaluate at all. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on retention, deletion deadlines, talent-pool consent, access logging, or how a data-subject request would be answered. For the criterion the employer is personally liable for, the public record here is empty. 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 vendor markets itself as "ATS Software & AI Add-Ons" while we found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, which provider is behind it, or whether any of it can be switched off. A match score I cannot explain to a rejected candidate is precisely what I refuse to buy. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The headline markets "#1 Rated ATS Software & AI Add-Ons for Recruitment", yet gives no statement of what the AI evaluates, where it runs, or whether a customer can switch it off. We found no public information on inputs, per-feature controls or the model provider — precisely the documentation a works council will demand before any automated ranking touches applicants. 1
The Data Protection Officer
"#1 Rated ATS Software & AI Add-Ons for Recruitment" is the whole of the AI story on the page: we found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where the models run, who the provider is, whether each feature can be switched off, or any EU AI Act position. An undisclosed score next to a candidate's name is exactly what the law treats as high-risk, and no works council could base an agreement on this. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The vendor's positioning is "#1 Rated ATS Software & AI Add-Ons for Recruitment", yet we found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, or whether a customer can switch it off. An AI add-on marketed with no published inputs, no named provider and no stated off-switch is precisely where my committee withholds agreement. 1
The HR IT Integrator
"AI Add-Ons" sits in the headline positioning, yet I found no public information on what the AI evaluates, where it runs, who the model provider is, or whether a customer can switch each feature off. Marketing AI alongside recruiting with no stated inputs or controls is the bottom of my scale for this criterion. 1
The Skeptic
AI add-ons are marketed on the homepage ("#1 Rated ATS Software & AI Add-Ons for Recruitment") with no statement of what they evaluate, where they run, or whether they can be turned off. An AI feature sold purely as a benefit, with nothing else published, is exactly what a works council cannot review. 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
We found no public information on integrations, an API, or handover to any HR or payroll system, German or otherwise; the captured pages offer only a free consultation and a book-a-demo button. A hire that ends in retyping into the HR system is a hire my team of two cannot afford. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
We found no public information on a documented API, handover to HR systems common in DACH, calendar or video-interview integration, SSO or e-signature. Nothing on the captured page describes what happens to a hire after acceptance. 1
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public information on an API, handover to HR or payroll systems, calendar or identity integration, e-signature, or webhooks; the only engagement routes published are a free consultation and a demo. Nothing here shows how a hire leaves the recruiting system without being retyped. 1
The Works Council Advocate
We found no public information on handover to an HR or payroll system, identity or calendar integration, e-signature, or an API. Nothing published tells me what happens to a hired candidate's file after the offer is accepted. 1
The HR IT Integrator
This is my home turf and there is nothing to judge: I found no public information on an API, SSO, SCIM, calendar or e-signature integration, or any named HR or payroll system in DACH. Nothing published evidences that a hire arrives in Personio or SAP SuccessFactors with its documents rather than as something someone retypes. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on integrations with HR or payroll systems, SSO, e-signature, webhooks, or a documented API. The only entry points offered are a free consultation and a demo booking. 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
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's seat, or any subprocessor list, while AI add-ons are marketed with their processing location unclear. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, so this silence carries the full weight of the lowest assessment. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
No sovereignty information is on record for this vendor: hosting location, contracting entity, infrastructure and subprocessors are all unstated, while AI add-ons are marketed with no processing location given. Every applicant record belongs to a third party who never chose this vendor, so an unstated chain is where I stop. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on hosting location, the contracting entity's seat, or any subprocessor list naming the CV parser or AI provider, while AI add-ons are marketed with no processing location given. Every record in this system belongs to a third party who never chose the vendor, and nothing published lets an employer see where their CVs travel. 1
The Works Council Advocate
No sovereignty information is on record: hosting, the contracting entity's location and the subprocessor list are all unstated on the captured page, and we found no public information on where the AI add-ons process CVs. Every applicant is a third party who never chose this vendor, so I asked, and the captured page gives me nothing to answer with. 1
The HR IT Integrator
The vendor is listed as Oleeo Ltd and the sovereignty record came back with nothing: I found no public information on hosting location, contracting jurisdiction, subprocessors, or where the AI add-ons process CVs. Applicant records belong to third parties who never chose this vendor, so with the chain this unpublished I stay at the floor. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record for this vendor: we found no public information on hosting location, subcontractors, or where the marketed AI add-ons process CVs, and the only named entity is Oleeo Ltd with no EU contracting details published. 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 are published at all — no tier, no basis, no term — and the only commercial path on the page is a free consultation and a book-a-demo button. I cannot begin to compute an annual cost from these pages. 1
The Employer Branding Manager
The only commercial signals are a "Free Consultation" and a "Book A Demo" button; we found no public prices, tiers, pricing basis, minimum term or posting costs anywhere on the captured page. As the person who has to defend a job-ad budget line, I cannot even begin to estimate what a posting or an AI add-on would add to the invoice. 1
The Data Protection Officer
No prices of any kind are published; the only commercial path shown is a "Free Consultation" and "Book A Demo". A buyer cannot derive a single line of the annual invoice from the captured pages. 1
The Works Council Advocate
The only purchasing information on the captured page is a "Free Consultation" and "Book A Demo"; we found no public information on tiers, prices, the pricing basis, or the minimum term. A buyer cannot compute any cost from what is published. 1
The HR IT Integrator
No price of any kind appears on the captured page — the calls to action are "Free Consultation" and "Book A Demo". Every tier is a sales conversation, so a buyer can compute nothing in advance. 1
The Skeptic
No prices, pricing basis, add-ons, or contract term appear in the capture; the only entry points are a free consultation and a demo booking, which makes every tier a sales conversation and the annual invoice not computable from public 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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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 (oleeo.com, oleeo.com/privacy-statement, oleeo.com/products/ats-software, oleeo.com/solutions/ai-powered-applicant-tracking-system-and-recruitment-tools, oleeo.com/products/ai-candidate-screening, oleeo.com/products/aiskills-based-candidate-screening-software and 1 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We could not confirm any compliance information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 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
- 11 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
- 1 hosting 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.oleeo.com Checked 29 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.oleeo.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.oleeo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.oleeo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.oleeo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.oleeo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.oleeo.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →