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.
Bullhorn
Recruitment platform for staffing agencies, from a per-seat ATS at EUR 85 in Europe or USD 99 in the US up to a front-to-back suite with timesheets, invoicing and pay and bill. The two are regional price lists rather than a conversion. The recruitment CRM starts on the quote-only Pro plan.
Loxo
AI-powered talent intelligence platform combining sourcing, CRM, ATS, and outreach in one system for recruiters.
Bullhorn vs Loxo
Bullhorn scales down from a staffing operating system that can run timesheets, invoicing and pay-and-bill; Loxo scales up from a sourcing engine, and the plan that carries that engine is USD 199 per user rather than the USD 149 on the page.
Quick verdict
CloseBoth are defensible. A small number of criteria decide it.
Choose Bullhorn if
- You place contract or temp workers and need timesheets, invoicing and pay-and-bill inside the same vendor rather than bolted alongside
- You want a per-seat number before a sales call — EUR 85 Starter and EUR 115 Core in Europe, USD 99 and USD 165 in the US
- Your consultants already track well and the thing that breaks at scale is the paperwork behind the placement rather than the pipeline in front of it
Choose Loxo if
- Your bottleneck is supply: you want the talent graph, contact data and the pipeline on one subscription instead of an ATS plus a sourcing tool plus a data provider
- You have sourcers of unequal intensity and want one pooled allowance — 2,500 credits per user per month, shared across the team
- Moving your database is the part you dread: free migration is included for Core teams of three seats and up, with self-serve tooling below that
Neither, if
- You are an in-house talent team: both are built around clients, placements and billing, and none of that maps onto hiring against your own headcount plan
- You are a one- or two-person desk: on both sides the entry price is not the working price, and the working price assumes a team
- You need to pay monthly: Loxo's published plans are annual agreements paid up front, and Bullhorn quotes everything above Core
Both publish entry prices and both hide the working tier, so the commercial comparison is only half available. What separates them is a documented difference in what the product was built around, which is enough to point an agency with a clear contract-desk or supply problem, but not enough to call either the better system in general.
Summary
Choosing the system a recruitment agency runs its desk and its back office on
What they have in common
Both are agency-first systems of record rather than in-house products with an agency page, both carry candidates, clients, jobs and placements in one platform, and both publish an entry price while quoting the tier most buyers end up on.
Where they really differ
Which half of the agency the product was built around. One starts from the back office and reaches forward to the desk; the other starts from finding people and reaches back to keep what it finds. Both arrive at an ATS and a CRM, from opposite ends.
Who this decision is for
An agency past the point where the system of record is a preference — typically a multi-consultant firm deciding whether its constraint is billing complexity or pipeline supply.
Side by side, on what decides it
The deciding criterion here is: Whether your agency's constraint is the paperwork behind a placement or the supply of people in front of it
| Decision factor | Bullhorn | Loxo |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price against working price | EUR 85 Starter and EUR 115 Core in Europe; the CRM, AI search and automation start on Pro, which is quoted | USD 149 Core is the ATS and CRM; the talent graph, contact data, AI chat and API sit on Professional at USD 199 |
| The contract desk | Timesheets, invoicing and pay-and-bill inside the same vendor | Not established in Loxo's brief; the product is built around sourcing and pipeline |
| Where sourcing comes from | AI search and match start on Pro, which carries no published price in either market | The talent graph and contact data are the product, on Professional at USD 199 per user |
| The second budget line | Not established beyond the seat price; everything above Core is quoted | Credits: 2,500 per user per month pooled across the team, with boosts at two and five times the allowance |
| How you pay | Per user per month, with free implementation stated for the small-agency offers | Both published plans are annual agreements paid in advance |
| Getting your database in | Free implementation is stated for the small-agency offers | Free migration for Core teams of three seats and up; self-serve tooling below that |
Also weighs on it: Whether you place contract workers or only permanent · How much you currently spend on sourcing tools · Whether an annual prepayment is acceptable
Commercial facts
Only compare claims that SourcrLab can currently support. Unknowns stay unknown; verify buyer-critical details before purchase.
| Decision factor | Bullhorn | Loxo |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Per User (from From EUR 85/user/month (EU) or $99 (US)) | Per User (from $149/user/month) |
| Free plan | No | No |
| Free trial | No | Yes |
Where Bullhorn wins
The invoice is part of the product
Timesheets, invoicing and pay-and-bill live with the same vendor as the pipeline. For an agency placing contract or temp workers, that is not a feature comparison: it is the difference between one system and an integration project between two, and the integration project is what fails at month-end.
Two regional price lists, both published
Starter and Core carry figures in euros and in dollars, and the gap between EUR 115 and USD 165 is wider than any exchange rate explains — which tells a European buyer they are being quoted a European list rather than a conversion. Knowing which list you are on is the first honest step in the negotiation.
Where Loxo wins
The sourcing tool is not a separate invoice
The talent graph, contact data and the agentic features sit on top of the applicant tracking and the client relationship management, so the find-and-track loop does not span two vendors. The honest comparison is therefore this product against a cheaper agency system plus whatever you currently pay to find people.
One allowance for a team of unequal appetites
Credits are pooled at 2,500 per user per month across the whole team rather than fenced per seat, so a consultant who sources all day and one who barely searches share a single balance. Per-seat metering makes the light user subsidise nobody and the heavy user stop early.
Migration is quoted as included, not as a project
Free migration for Core teams of three seats and up, with self-serve tooling below that. Moving an agency database is usually the expensive and frightening part of switching, and a vendor that puts it inside the offer has removed the main reason agencies stay on systems they dislike.
Trade-offs that apply either way
On both sides the published price is not the product
One puts the recruitment CRM, AI search and process automation on an unpriced tier; the other puts the talent graph and contact data fifty dollars above the figure on the page. Ask each vendor for the annual total on the tier that carries the capability you are buying the system for.
Neither has been used by SourcrLab
Both briefs record hands-on experience as absent, so everything here is read from published material and, on one side, from the vendor's own claims about its data. Consultant adoption is what decides whether an agency system holds the data it is meant to, and that is not something either page can tell you.
Reading the two price models
- Both publish an entry figure, and on both sides it buys less than the thing you came for. Compare Pro against Professional, not Starter against Core, or the comparison is between two products nobody is actually buying.
- Loxo's USD 199 is annual and paid in advance, so a five-person desk is committing a five-figure sum before the first placement. That is a cash-flow question as much as a price one, and it does not appear on the pricing page.
- Credits are a second budget line, not a rounding error: boosts exist at two and five times the base allowance precisely because a sourcing-heavy month does not fit inside it. Model your own volume before choosing between these two.
Best by scenario
A contract desk of fifteen consultants invoicing weekly
Timesheets, invoicing and pay-and-bill with one vendor is the whole reason this comparison exists, and the other side does not establish that it does contract work at all.
A perm search firm paying for a sourcing tool and a contact database
Those two subscriptions are what Professional at USD 199 is priced against, and no back-office requirement pulls the decision the other way.
A two-person agency reading the entry prices
On both sides the published figure buys a stripped tier, and the working configuration assumes a team. A lighter agency system answers this desk better than either does.
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 Bullhorn's Pro and Max tiers cost in either market
- What Loxo charges at enterprise level
- Whether Loxo supports a contract desk with timesheets and billing
- How either behaves in daily consultant use — SourcrLab has used neither