Recruiting
Workable
UK / wider Europe Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 3 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Workable Software Limited · www.workable.com
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
Workable is a recruiting and HR platform whose strength is the hiring workflow itself: candidate pipeline scores 7-8, on multi-level requisition approvals, offer approval flows with e-signatures, granular per-stage access rights and audit trails that log every change. AI screening control scores 6-7, with an account-wide kill switch, reasoning shown on every score, protected characteristics excluded by design and low-confidence cases routed to a human. Sovereignty is the weakest criterion at 2: the services are stated to be hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., the contracting entity is Workable Software Limited under English law, EEA storage is mentioned only as a possibility, and the sub-processor list is linked but not shown. Applicant data governance scores 3-4, with retention tied only to the service obligation or original purpose. Scores spread from 4 to 6 on job distribution — 200+ boards and named Indeed and LinkedIn partnerships set against no public information on German boards — and from 4 to 6 on pricing transparency, where published tier figures sit beside an unstated pricing basis.
Speaks for it
- Candidate pipeline scores 7-8, with multi-level requisition approvals, offer approvals with e-signatures, and audit trails logging every change
- AI screening control scores 6-7, with an account-wide kill switch, per-job screening configuration, and low-confidence cases routed to a human
- A documented REST API with webhooks and automatic export to a connected HRIS at the hired stage; integrations and handover scores sit at 6
- All three tiers publish figures — Standard at $299/month and $3,588/year — with itemized add-ons and a renewal increase capped at five percent on 45 days' notice
- A 15-day trial requires no credit card, and candidates can withdraw their applications online directly
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores sit at 2: hosting and operation in the United States through Workable, Inc., EEA storage only a mentioned possibility, and a sub-processor list linked but not shown
- Applicant data governance scores 3-4: retention lasts as long as the service obligation or original purpose, with no public information on automatic deletion after rejection or talent-pool consent
- We found no public information naming any HR or payroll system the HRIS connector targets, or the providers behind the third-party large language models
- The captured pages give different pictures of automated decision-making: the privacy policy states none, while product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing
- The pricing pages do not say what the tier price is based on — jobs, seats or employees — and we found no public information on job-board posting costs, the minimum term or VAT treatment
Best for
- You need an auditable hiring pipeline — multi-level approvals, logged and reversible decisions, reasoning shown with every score — to present to a works council
- You want AI screening you can switch off account-wide and configure per job, keeping humans in the loop for low-confidence cases
- You plan to build your HRIS handover through the documented REST API and webhooks rather than a pre-named connector
- You want to price add-ons precisely from published figures before committing — texting at $89/mo, video interviews at $109/mo, assessments at $59/mo
Avoid if
- You must evidence EU hosting for applicant records — the privacy policy states US hosting through Workable, Inc., EEA storage only as a possibility, and no customer-selectable EU region is described
- You need retention that ends automatically after rejection or consent-gated talent-pool storage — retention is stated only for as long as the service obligation or original purpose persists
- Your go-live depends on a connector to a named HR or payroll system such as Personio — the captured handover page is a partner-program page and names no receiving system
- You need the full annual invoice computable before contacting the vendor — the pages publish tiers but not the pricing basis, job-board posting costs, the minimum term or VAT treatment, and pricing is stated to vary by billing country
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
Requisition approvals with budget controls, offer approval flows and granular access rights configured at each stage are exactly what I need before handing a vacancy to a hiring manager, and the interview kits, scorecards and self-scheduled interviews with two-way calendar sync make a decision defensible. Audit trails tracking all changes, with every action logged and attributed whether made by model, agent or person, answer the "who decided" question. I found no public information on bulk actions or on time-to-hire and drop-off reporting per stage. 1 2
The Employer Branding Manager
Requisition approvals with multi-level sign-off, offer approval flows with e-signatures, granular access rights configurable per stage, interview kits and scorecards, self-scheduled interviews with two-way calendar sync and audit trails tracking every change are all documented. We found no public information on bulk actions or reporting on drop-off per stage, which is what keeps me just short of calling the pipeline an auditable record. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
Pipelines are configurable per job with granular permissions at each stage, multi-level requisition approvals, offer approvals with e-signature, structured interview kits and scorecards, and audit trails that log every change — decisions are documented, not merely made. The gap to the top is narrow but real: we found no public information on time-to-hire or drop-off reporting per stage, or on a per-candidate history export usable in a dispute. 1 2 6
The Works Council Advocate
Custom pipelines with granular permissions per stage, multi-level requisition approvals, offer approval flows with e-signatures, structured interview kits and scorecards, and audit trails logging every change — a decision trail a works council can actually read, with every score shown with its reasoning and overridable. We found no public information on bulk actions, on time-to-hire and drop-off reporting per stage, or on a full per-candidate history export for a discrimination dispute, so I stop short of the top. 1 2 6
The HR IT Integrator
Requisition approvals with budget controls, offer approvals with e-signatures, granular access rights per stage, interview kits and scorecards, and self-scheduled interviews with two-way calendar sync — the daily pipeline is well covered. Audit trails track all changes and every automated action is logged, permissioned and reversible, with override on any auto-advance. We found no public information on drop-off reporting per stage or a full per-candidate history export for a legal dispute. 1 2
The Skeptic
Requisition approvals with multi-level sign-off, offer approval flows, granular access rights configurable at each stage, and interview kits with scorecards are all stated, and audit trails tracking all changes plus logged, overridable agent decisions give a record of who did what. I found no public information on time-to-hire or drop-off reporting per stage, on bulk actions, or on exporting a candidate's full decision history for a discrimination dispute, so this stops short of an auditable fair-process record. 1 2 6
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
A branded careers-page builder with a website jobs widget, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed Platinum and LinkedIn Preferred partner status, and mobile-optimized applications with auto-fill cover most of the funnel, and candidates can withdraw themselves online. But I found no public information on named German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major German paid board, on Google for Jobs markup, or on source attribution per applicant — the pieces my German-market hiring actually turns on. 1 2 4
The Employer Branding Manager
There is a drag-and-drop branded careers page, a jobs widget for the website, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed Platinum and LinkedIn Preferred partnerships, mobile-optimized applications with auto-fill in the candidate's language, and online self-withdrawal. But we found no public information on German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or StepStone, Google for Jobs markup, applying without an account, or cost and applicants per channel — the numbers my job-ad budget actually runs on. 1 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
Distribution to 200+ boards with named Indeed Platinum and LinkedIn Preferred partner status, a branded drag-and-drop career site, and mobile applications with auto-fill — and, to their credit, candidates can withdraw their application online themselves. We found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit feed, Google for Jobs markup, an accessibility statement, or cost and applicant reporting per channel. 1 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
A branded careers-page builder with an embeddable jobs widget, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed and LinkedIn named as partner tiers, and mobile application with auto-fill in the candidate's native language — solid, and candidates can withdraw online themselves. We found no public information on the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Google for Jobs markup, source attribution per applicant, per-board booking and budget tracking, or a stated accessibility standard for the career page. 1 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
A branded drag-and-drop career site with a website jobs widget, distribution to 200+ boards with Indeed Platinum and LinkedIn Preferred status, and mobile applications with auto-fill in the candidate's native language. We found no public information on German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit, on Google for Jobs markup, or on source attribution per applicant. Candidates can at least withdraw themselves online directly. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
A branded careers-page builder with a website jobs widget, distribution to 200+ boards, Indeed and LinkedIn named as partner channels, and mobile-optimized applications with auto-fill are stated, and candidates can withdraw online directly. I found no public information naming German boards such as the Bundesagentur für Arbeit or a major German paid board, no Google for Jobs markup, no per-board booking or budget tracking, and no source attribution per applicant. 1 2 4
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
Retention is stated only as holding data as long as necessary, deletion happens on request, and a named Data Protection Officer with free-of-charge GDPR rights gives a documented path for an access or erasure request. I found no public information on an automatic deletion deadline after rejection, on talent-pool consent with expiry, or on a log of who viewed an applicant file — the GDPR automation tools are named without detail. For the liability I carry on sixty hires a year, that leaves the work manual. 2 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
GDPR rights are answered free of charge through a named Data Protection Officer, personal information is deleted on written request, and audit trails track changes. We found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable period following rejection, recorded consent for the Talent CRM pool, consent expiry, or logged deletion runs — exactly the parts the employer, not the vendor, is liable for. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Deletion happens on request and data is held only "as long as necessary" — no automatic deletion deadline after rejection is stated anywhere, and the talent CRM is marketed with no consent step, let alone consent that expires. Audit trails track changes to records, but we found no public information on a log of who viewed or exported an applicant file, and the one "GDPR automation tools" bullet is never explained. 1 2 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
Retention is described only as "as long as necessary", deletion happens on request, a DPO channel and free GDPR rights requests exist, and audit trails track changes — but we found no public information on automatic deletion after a configurable period following rejection, on talent-pool consent with expiry, or on a log of who viewed an applicant's file. The privacy policy's own deletion and re-consent mechanics stop at request-driven removal, and "GDPR automation tools" are named without description. 1 2 3
The HR IT Integrator
Deletion happens on request and GDPR rights have a documented route through a named DPO, but retention simply lasts as long as the service obligation or the original purpose. We found no public information on an automatic deletion deadline after rejection or on a consent step for talent-pool storage; "GDPR automation tools" is the only detail the captured pricing page gives. This is the liability item the employer carries. 2 3
The Skeptic
The retention statement holds data as long as needed to provide the services or fulfil the original purpose — a purpose, not a configurable deletion deadline — and deletion happens on request; the talent CRM is marketed with no stated consent step, expiry or re-consent mechanism. GDPR rights free of charge and a DPO contact are documented, which covers answering an access request, but I found no public information on automatic deletion after rejection, deletion-run logs, view or export logs on applicant files, or how deletion propagates to backups and boards. 2 3
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 agent can be disabled across the account at any time, configured per job down to screening thresholds and scoring weights, every score comes with its reasoning shown, protected characteristics are stated to be excluded by design, and low-confidence inferences pass to a human — the controls I need before showing a works council anything. The providers behind the acknowledged third-party large language models are not named on the captured pages, and I found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used or on EU processing for the AI features. The captured pages also give different pictures of automation: the privacy policy states no automated decision-making, while product pages say strong fits auto-advance with instant override. 3 4 6
The Employer Branding Manager
Scores are shown with their reasoning, protected characteristics are stated to be excluded by design, low-confidence inferences pass to a human, the agent can be switched off across the account and configured per job with screening cut-offs and scoring weights, and there is an EU AI Act alignment statement plus AI fairness research participation. The terms acknowledge unnamed third-party large language models, and we found no public information on informing candidates when AI is used or EU processing for these features; the privacy policy states no automated decision-making while product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing with override. 1 3 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
Every score comes with its reasoning, protected characteristics are stated to be excluded by design, screening thresholds and scoring weights are configurable per account and per job, every action is logged and reversible, the agent stops the moment a human engages, and a whole-account kill switch exists. But the third-party language models behind the features are acknowledged without ever being named, we found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used or on EU processing for the AI features, and the EU AI Act position is a single sentence — the captured pages also give different pictures of automated routing, with the privacy policy stating no automated decision-making while the product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing and clear no's being routed out. 1 3 4 6
The Works Council Advocate
The Agent is disclosed with purpose and inputs — sourcing, screening and qualifying against up to 14 job criteria — every score carries its reasoning, actions are logged and reversible, low-confidence inferences pass to a human, an account-wide off switch is published, protected characteristics are stated excluded by design, and an EU AI Act alignment is stated — most of what a Betriebsrat asks for. We found no public information on informing candidates that AI is used, on EU processing for the AI features, or on a named model provider, and the captured pages give different accounts of automated advancement: the privacy policy states no automated decision-making or profiling while product pages describe strong fits auto-advancing. 1 3 4 6
The HR IT Integrator
A whole-account kill switch, per-job configuration of screening parameters and scoring weights, reasoning shown with every score, protected characteristics excluded by design, low-confidence cases routed to a human and every action logged — that is most of what a works council agreement needs, and the vendor states it does not engage in automated decision-making while claiming EU AI Act alignment. We found no public information naming the third-party model providers behind the AI features, on informing candidates of AI use, or on EU processing for those features given the US-default hosting. 1 3 4 6
The Skeptic
An account-level kill switch with data left intact, configuration per account, per job and per candidate of screening settings and scoring weights, reasoning shown with every score, logged reversible actions, low-confidence cases passed to a human, and protected characteristics excluded by design are all stated, alongside fairness-research participation and an EU AI Act alignment claim. The providers behind the third-party large language models are not named on the captured pages, I found no public information that candidates are informed when AI is used or that AI processing can run in the EU, and the privacy policy's statement that Workable does not engage in automated decision-making sits beside marketing that clear no's are routed out automatically — the captured pages give different pictures of automated rejection. 1 3 4 6
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
A fully documented REST API with webhooks, single sign-on, e-signatures, and an automatic export the moment a candidate reaches the hired stage — carrying the resume PDF, start date and personal email — plus the vendor's own HR and payroll-preparation modules means a hire does not get retyped. I found no public information on a maintained handover to HR or payroll systems common in DACH such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, on SCIM, or on published API rate limits; the payroll integrations are named without naming the systems. 1 2 7
The Employer Branding Manager
A fully documented REST API with webhooks, an HRIS connector that exports a defined field set automatically when a candidate reaches the hired stage, Zoom/Teams/Meet, single sign-on and e-signatures are all public. We found no public information on a handover to a named DACH HR or payroll system such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, on SCIM, or on published API limits. 1 2 7
The Data Protection Officer
A documented REST API with webhooks, automatic export to a connected HRIS when a candidate reaches the hired stage with the carried fields listed, video and calendar integration, e-signature and single sign-on. We found no public information on named DACH HR or payroll systems such as Personio or DATEV-connected systems, SCIM, or published API rate limits. 1 2 7
The Works Council Advocate
A documented REST API with webhooks, SSO, e-signatures, Zoom/Teams/Meet, and an automatic handover when a candidate reaches the hired stage that carries the resume and core fields into the connected HRIS — good bones. But we found no public information naming any HR, payroll or DACH system on the receiving end, and none on SCIM, published API limits, or deletion propagating to connected systems, which is exactly where an internal candidate's file leaks into a personnel record. 1 2 7
The HR IT Integrator
The mechanics exist: a fully documented REST API with webhooks, e-signature for offers, Zoom, Teams and Meet, Gmail and Google Calendar, and an HRIS connector that exports automatically when a candidate reaches the hired stage. But the exported set carries the resume as a PDF, and we found no public information naming any HR or payroll system the connector targets, so a Personio, DATEV-connected or SAP SuccessFactors handover cannot be planned from these pages; we also found none on SCIM or published API limits, and single sign-on appears under advanced services with no stated plan entitlement. A connector that names no systems is not one I can assign an owner to. 1 2 4 7
The Skeptic
A documented REST API with webhooks, MCP access, calendar and Zoom/Teams/Meet integration, e-signatures, single sign-on, and automatic export of a defined field set when a candidate reaches the hired stage are stated. I found no public information naming any specific HR system — not Personio, not a DATEV-connected system, not SAP SuccessFactors — since the handover page is a partner-program page, and there is no public information on SCIM, published API limits, or a deprecation policy. 1 2 7
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 a UK company under English law and the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts, and the services are hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., with the US as the stated default and EEA storage only mentioned as a possibility — I found no public information on a customer-selectable EU region. A sub-processor list is published and transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Frameworks, which softens but does not change that every CV belongs to a candidate who never chose this vendor and is heading into a US-hosted stack. 3 4
The Employer Branding Manager
The contracting entity is UK-based under English law, and the privacy policy states the services are hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., with data stored in the USA or possibly the EEA and no customer-selectable EU region described. Transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework, the subprocessor list is referenced but not shown, and we found no public information on where CV parsing and the AI features run — every applicant's CV travels a chain that person never chose. 3 4
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is the London company, but the privacy policy states the services are hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., with EEA storage mentioned only as a possibility and no customer-selectable EU region described. The sub-processor list is linked, not shown, so neither a CV parser nor an AI provider is named anywhere I can see, and transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework with the US entity under FTC enforcement — a UK entity and a Greek representative do not make this European hosting. 3 4
The Works Council Advocate
The contracting entity is London-based under English law, and the services are stated to be hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc.; the policy allows storage in the USA as well as the EEA, but we found no public information on a customer-selectable EU region. Transfers rest on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework with the US entity self-certified, a sub-processor list is published by link, and the terms name third-party large language models without location — for applicant data belonging to people who never chose this vendor, that is a co-determination problem. 3 4
The HR IT Integrator
The contracting entity is Workable Software Limited in London while the services are hosted and operated in the US through Workable, Inc., with EEA storage mentioned only as a possibility and the hosting provider itself never named. A sub-processor list is linked but not shown, the AI features may run on unnamed third-party models, and the transfer story rests on DPF self-certification and SCCs. For records belonging to candidates who never chose this vendor, that is a chain I cannot evidence to a works council. 3 4
The Skeptic
The privacy policy states the services are hosted and operated in the United States through Workable, Inc., with storage on servers in the USA as well as possibly the EEA but no customer-selectable EU region described, and the contracting entity is the London company under English law with transfers relying on SCCs and the Data Privacy Framework. A sub-processor list exists as a link while the hosting provider itself is not named in the captured text, and where the third-party AI models process candidate data is not stated — for applicant records, this is US-default hosting with no EU option described. 3 4
Pricing transparency
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
All three bundle tiers are priced publicly, add-ons are itemised — texting at $89/mo, video interviews at $109/mo, assessments at $59/mo — and AI credits are priced per bundle down to one credit per candidate screened, which is more visible than most vendors manage. I found no public information on what the tier price is based on — employees, jobs or seats — on job-board posting costs or the booking model, on the minimum term, or on VAT treatment, so I cannot compute the real annual invoice for my volume. The 5% renewal cap with 45 days' notice is a useful published guardrail. 1 2 4
The Employer Branding Manager
All three bundles carry monthly and annual figures and the add-ons are unusually well priced — texting, video interviews, assessments, and AI credit bundles down to the per-action credit cost, with a renewal increase capped and noticed. But we found no public information on what the tier price is based on (employees, open jobs or recruiter seats), on what a paid job-board posting adds to the bill, on the minimum term, or on VAT treatment — so I cannot compute a real annual invoice, and pricing may vary by billing country. 2 4
The Data Protection Officer
All three tiers carry public monthly and annual figures, and add-ons are unusually well priced down to per-credit AI costs for screening, sourcing and chat. But the pricing basis — what a $299 Standard month buys in jobs or seats — and the tier limits are unstated, and we found no public information on job-board posting costs, the minimum term, or VAT treatment. 2 4
The Works Council Advocate
All three bundles are priced publicly with add-ons itemised monthly and AI credits priced per credit, a five percent renewal cap with 45 days' notice, and a 15-day trial without a card. But we found no public information on what the monthly price is based on — seats, jobs or employees — on tier limits, job-board posting costs, the minimum term, or VAT treatment, and pricing is stated to vary by billing country, so the real annual invoice is not computable from the public pages. 2 4
The HR IT Integrator
All three tiers are published with exact annual totals, add-ons are individually priced from texting to assessments, and the AI credit economy is itemized down to per-action credit costs, one-year expiry and non-refundability. What is missing is the foundation: we found no public information on the pricing basis — jobs, recruiter seats or employees — on job-board posting costs, on the minimum term, or on VAT treatment beyond "pricing may vary by billing country". The annual invoice is computable for the add-ons, not for the core. 2 4
The Skeptic
Three bundles are priced with add-ons itemised — texting, video interviews, assessments, performance — and AI is priced unusually concretely in credit bundles with per-action costs, one-year expiry, a renewal cap of five percent with 45 days' notice, and a 15-day trial without a credit card. But the captured pricing pages do not say what the monthly price is based on — jobs, employees or recruiter seats — and I found no public information on job-board posting costs or the booking model, the minimum term, or VAT treatment, so a real annual invoice for a given company size cannot be computed from public pages alone. 1 2 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
3 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 | Incorporated in GB ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | US by default ⚠ unverified | 0/3 pts | 3 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | US CLOUD Act reach ⚠ unverified | 0/2 pts | 3 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.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The contracting entity is UK-based, but the privacy policy states the Services are hosted and operated through Workable, Inc. in the US, and the site footer names Workable Technology Limited, so other group entities exist.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The same policy says data "may be stored by Workable's hosting service provider on servers in the USA as well as in the EEA", so EEA storage is mentioned as a possibility, but no customer-selectable EU region is described and the US is the stated default.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. The hosting service provider itself is never named (the sub-processor list is only linked, not shown in the excerpts), and part of the US exposure comes from the vendor's own US entity Workable, Inc., which operates the services and is self-certified under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework.
- 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.
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 3 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
- 2 integrations 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 legal 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
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.workable.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.workable.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.workable.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.workable.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Applicant management & hiring workflow — found from sitemap www.workable.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 AI screening transparency & control — found from sitemap www.workable.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 HR handover, integrations & API — found from sitemap www.workable.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →