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.
The Skeptic
Workflows are genuinely configurable — ten application stages and unlimited interview workflows with custom labels assignable per job, drag-and-drop moves with sub-statuses, contract generation at offer, and interview scheduling with Google and Office 365 calendars plus attendance and gap rules. Evaluation is where it thins out: we found no public information on structured scorecards, approval workflows for requisitions or offers, or a per-candidate history of who changed which stage — the audit trail claim covers access attempts generally. 4 5 13 3