Make this comparison fit your situation
Three quick choices. No extra page and no hidden score shown.
You work as
Recruitment team
Budget pressure
The static comparison stays the source; this only re-weights the fit for your context.
Ashby
All-in-one recruiting platform for in-house teams, combining applicant tracking, sourcing CRM, scheduling and reporting. Priced by company size rather than per recruiter.
Greenhouse
Applicant tracking system built around structured hiring: interview plans, scorecards, permissions and a large integration marketplace. Three plans, all priced on quote.
Ashby vs Greenhouse
Ashby publishes what it costs while you are under 100 employees and puts sourcing and reporting inside the same product; Greenhouse quotes every plan and sells the interview process itself, with the widest integration surface around it.
Quick verdict
CloseBoth are defensible. A small number of criteria decide it.
Choose Ashby if
- You are under 100 employees and the budget has to be set before anyone books a sales call — the Foundations bands run USD 300 to 900 per month
- Hiring managers and coordinators come and go and you want the bill to follow company size rather than the number of people in the system
- A real share of your hiring is outbound and you would rather have sequences, a sourcing extension and candidate search inside the ATS than as a second subscription
Choose Greenhouse if
- Four people interview the same candidate and the thing that has to hold is the interview plan, the scorecard and the moment a decision is actually taken
- Your stack is already large and you are choosing on whether the assessment, scheduling and sourcing tools you run will connect — the vendor states 500+ pre-built integrations
- Coordinators, external agencies and executives all touch the same pipeline, and permissions matter more to you than a published entry price
Neither, if
- You are a recruitment agency — neither has a placement or billing model, and an agency desk will hit that wall in the first month
- You hire a handful of people a year: the implementation effort on either side costs more than the process it buys you
- You want to pilot the product yourself before talking to anyone — every plan on both sides, Ashby's entry tier included, goes through sales
The commercial difference is documented and one-sided, but the capability difference is not: Greenhouse's price level is unknown at every tier, Ashby's is unknown above 100 employees, and neither product has been used by SourcrLab. Below the band boundary the answer is firm; above it, it is a judgement about process rather than about cost.
Summary
Choosing the in-house ATS a growing company will run its hiring on for the next several years
What they have in common
Both are in-house products: they track requisitions against your own headcount plan, and neither carries placements, client billing or a agency desk. Both route every plan through a sales conversation, and neither publishes a self-serve trial.
Where they really differ
Whether you can still see a price at your company size. Ashby names a figure up to 100 employees and builds reporting and outbound sequences into the product; Greenhouse names none at any size and spends the budget on interview kits, permissions and a marketplace instead.
Who this decision is for
A company somewhere between its first recruiter and a few hundred employees, deciding whether to buy something it can budget for today or an ecosystem it will have to negotiate for.
Decision guidance
Choose Greenhouse if you need the broadest integration ecosystem and a proven structured hiring methodology. Choose Ashby if you want an all-in-one platform with best-in-class native analytics and prefer consolidating your recruiting stack into a single tool.
Summary
Greenhouse is the established leader in structured hiring, boasting the largest integration ecosystem with 500+ partners and deep compliance reporting. Ashby is the modern challenger offering an all-in-one recruiting platform with built-in analytics, ATS, CRM, and scheduling in a single product. Greenhouse is battle-tested at scale, while Ashby appeals to teams wanting fewer tools and more native analytics without third-party add-ons.
Side by side, on what decides it
The deciding criterion here is: Whether a published price still exists at your company size, and what you give up to keep that visibility
| Decision factor | Ashby | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| A price you can see at your size | USD 300 to 900 per month up to 100 employees; Plus and Enterprise are quoted | None. Core, Plus and Pro are all quoted |
| What actually moves the bill | The company-size band, not how much you hire | Plan, hiring volume and organisational complexity, in the vendor's own words |
| Outbound sourcing inside the ATS | Sequences across email and InMail, a sourcing extension, projects and candidate search | Not established in Greenhouse's brief; the marketplace is the stated route to sourcing tools |
| Where growth hurts | Crossing a headcount band raises the bill without any change in recruiting activity | Structure only pays back if hiring managers fill the kits in — an organisational commitment, not a setting |
| Route in before you sign | Every plan routes through a Get in Touch button; no self-serve trial | A demo with a Greenhouse expert who recommends a plan; no published trial |
Also weighs on it: How much of your hiring is genuinely outbound · How many interviewers touch one candidate · How wide the surrounding tool stack already is
Commercial facts
Only compare claims that SourcrLab can currently support. Unknowns stay unknown; verify buyer-critical details before purchase.
| Decision factor | Ashby | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Paid (from From $300/month) | Enterprise |
| Free plan | No | No |
| Free trial | No | No |
Where Ashby wins
A number you can put in next year's budget
Foundations runs USD 300 to 900 per month by company-size band, which means a team under 100 employees can plan the year without a sales conversation. In a category where the entire field quotes, being able to write the line item yourself is the rarest thing on offer.
Adding people to the system adds nothing to the bill
One monthly price per company-size band covers the whole company. A second recruiter, a coordinator or ten hiring managers in the tool change nothing, which removes the quiet tax that per-seat pricing puts on involving the people who should be involved.
The reporting is engineered, not exported
Ashby sells its analytics layer on its own to companies that keep a different ATS. A vendor that can sell its reporting as a standalone product is a reasonable signal of where the engineering effort went, and it is a different proposition from a monthly export into a spreadsheet.
Where Greenhouse wins
The decision moment is designed, not improvised
Interview plans, scorecards and a defined point at which the call is made are how the system is meant to be used. That is what makes two interviewers' views comparable instead of a set of opinions gathered after the fact, and it is the whole reason this product costs what it costs.
The widest surface for the tools you already run
The vendor states 500+ pre-built integrations. For a company whose assessment, scheduling, payroll and sourcing tools are already chosen, that number is not marketing: it is the probability that the migration does not turn into six custom builds nobody scoped.
Permissions written for an organisation, not a team
Governance is called out as a first-class feature rather than an administrative screen. When hiring managers, coordinators, external agencies and executives all touch one pipeline, that is what keeps the data trustworthy enough to report on at all.
Trade-offs that apply either way
Neither will let you try it on your own
Ashby routes every plan through Get in Touch and Greenhouse routes you to a demo with an expert. For products whose value is a way of working rather than a feature list, that makes the pilot a procurement exercise on both sides, and it is worth budgeting the calendar time.
Above 100 employees the comparison loses its anchor
Ashby's published bands stop at 100 employees, and Plus and Enterprise are described as based on company size, usage and commitment. Past that line both products are quotes, and the one genuinely comparable number in this pair no longer exists.
Neither publishes how long it takes to go live
Implementation time is recorded as unknown on both sides. For a system that several departments will use daily, the gap between signing and actually running your hiring on it is a real cost, and you will have to get that answer from references rather than from either vendor's page.
Reading the two price models
- Under 100 employees this is the rare in-house ATS comparison where one side can actually be modelled: USD 300 to 900 per month against a quote. That asymmetry is the decision for a lot of buyers, and it is legitimate to treat it as one.
- Above it, both are quotes and neither price level is known here. Do not read Ashby's published bands as evidence that it stays cheaper at 400 employees; that is exactly the size at which its own pricing stops being published.
- Ashby quotes in USD from Europe and meters personal-email lookups on a plan allotment with extra batches sold separately, so currency, VAT and enrichment volume belong in your own arithmetic rather than in the headline figure.
Best by scenario
A 40-person software company hiring 12 people this year
Inside the published bands, with outbound work that would otherwise need a second tool, and small enough that a negotiated contract is overhead rather than leverage.
A 600-person company where six people interview every senior role
Past Ashby's published bands both sides are quotes, so the published-price advantage is gone and interviewer consistency and permissions become the deciding criteria.
A 15-person startup making its first three hires
Both are built around a process that assumes recurring hiring. Three hires do not pay back an implementation on either side, whatever the monthly figure says.
What this comparison does not know
Unknowns stay unknown. Verify these with the vendor before deciding — they are the gaps that would change the answer.
- What Greenhouse's Core, Plus and Pro actually cost, and what separates them
- What Ashby charges above 100 employees on Plus and Enterprise
- How long either takes to implement
- What interviewers experience day to day — SourcrLab has used neither product