A Greenhouse Alternative Where The Price Is Written Down

Anything that tracks applicants through a hiring process without being Greenhouse. On this hub that means Workable, Lever, iCIMS and Zoho Recruit. The useful question is not which platform has the longer feature list, because at this end of the market they will all move a candidate through stages and send a rejection. It is who configures the thing, who owns it afterward, and what the whole arrangement actually costs.

Greenhouse sells the platform and expects you to bring the person who shapes it. We sell one arrangement. The seven hundred covers the pipelines, the scorecards, the offer approvals, the permissions, the reporting and the integrations, and the people who configured it are the people who answer when you call. Greenhouse is the better structured hiring product of the two and we will say so plainly. It is also the one where the setting up stays with you.

There is no public figure to compare, so the honest answer is that nobody outside Greenhouse knows. That is not a criticism of the product, and plenty of good software is sold this way. It does mean you cannot set the two side by side until you have sat through a demo, and it means the number you are eventually quoted moves with how much you hire. Ours is the same seven hundred whether you hire two people this year or forty.

Your Zoho licenses, which Zoho bills to you directly at their published rates, and the work of deciding who you want to hire and what good looks like in the role, which stays with the people doing the hiring. Everything involved in turning those decisions into a working hiring process and keeping it working is inside the figure.

If your hiring is straightforward and somebody is willing to own it, do exactly that. Greenhouse is opinionated in a useful way and a capable recruiter can get a long way inside it. The reason people stop is not that Greenhouse failed them. It is that the person who configured it moved on, and nobody inherited it.

Often not, and finding that out now is far cheaper than finding it out in month four. If you hire two people a year and everybody already knows how it works, seven hundred a month of hiring management is a solution looking for a problem. We would rather say so on the first call.

No. The open requisitions, the candidates in play and the reports built on them move first, because those are what the team is actually working from. Closed roles and older applicants follow once the live process is settled. Splitting it that way means nobody waits on a full migration before they can get on with hiring.

Nobody stops hiring and nothing goes dark. Your existing Greenhouse pipelines stay exactly where they are until the new one has run a full month with nothing falling through it. Cutting over is a decision you make once you have watched it work, not a date we impose on you.

It is a common route here and the export itself is straightforward. Where it gets fiddly is deciding which of the existing stages, scorecards and custom fields are worth carrying over, because most companies accumulate a few nobody remembers creating. We work that out before anybody commits to anything, so the tidying up is known rather than discovered.

No to both, and the arrangement is deliberately dull. The Zoho account is in your name, the hiring data and every candidate record in it are yours, and if you stop working with us you keep the lot and carry on. Nothing about leaving is designed to be awkward.

One flat figure with nothing metered behind it. Seven hundred a month covers the pipelines and stages, the career site and job board publishing, the screening and the scorecards, the offer approvals, the permissions, the reporting, and the integrations with the rest of your Zoho apps.

No, and be wary of anybody who does. A migration meets candidate records nobody has looked at properly in years, and a first month of live hiring usually turns up two kinds of exception the business had never named. What we will commit to is that those surprises are ours to absorb rather than yours to be invoiced for.

Which roles moved, which candidates are stuck and at which stage, and what took longest, alongside anything we changed in the rules and anything odd enough to be worth mentioning. It is a page rather than a deck, and it is written so somebody who never opens the system can still tell how the hiring is going.

Four to eight weeks to a full month running cleanly in most cases, and longer where years of ad hoc spreadsheets and stage names have to be sorted out first. The honest variable is not our speed, it is how quickly somebody can tell us what ought to happen to a candidate nobody has decided about before.

Thirty days’ notice ends it and nothing is stranded. The Zoho account stays in your name, the pipelines and the candidate records stay exactly as they are, and the documentation comes with you. There is no exit fee and no data to pry out of us, because it was never ours to hold.