AI recruiting assistant across the recruitment stack
Primary sources checkedSourceGeek
A chat-based AI assistant for recruiters: describe the role and it searches and scores candidates with the evidence shown, reads context out of the ATS, inbox, calendar and files you already run, and writes back into those systems behind an approval step that is on by default.
The short answer
- Best for
- Agencies and in-house talent teams with an ATS, inbox and calendar already in place, whose exact ATS is live in the connector catalogue today
- Not ideal for
- Teams looking for a standalone ATS, buyers whose core systems are still marked coming soon, and anyone who does not want an AI layer reading across the recruitment stack
- Price
- Starter EUR 99 and Team EUR 179 per seat per month, both billed yearly. Enterprise on quote. 14-day free trial
- Closest alternative
- InstalentChoose Instalent when verified contact details and multichannel outreach are the bottleneck, rather than a chat layer that reads and writes across the whole stack
At a glance
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Ease of useUnknown
- ImplementationFair
- Price transparencyFair
- Value for moneyUnknown
- ScalabilityFair
Why these assessments
- Recruitment fitStrong
- Scoring runs against a job description, the connectors it treats as first-class are applicant tracking systems, and the actions it offers are pipeline updates, notes and offers. This is a recruitment product, not a general assistant with a hiring page.
- Ease of useUnknown
- A chat interface is easy to open and hard to judge from outside: what matters is whether the answers hold up on your own roles and your own data. The 14-day trial is the honest way to find out, and SourcrLab has not run one.
- ImplementationFair
- There is no system of record to migrate and connectors are authorised rather than installed, which is light. What is not light is the precondition: if your ATS is one of the many marked coming soon, the connected half of the product is not available to you at any price.
- Price transparencyFair
- Three tiers, both billing modes, seat caps and per-tier inclusions are all published, which is more than most. One thing is not, and it is the one that moves an invoice: credits are a metered unit whose rate, allowance and overage cost appear nowhere on the pricing page.
- Value for moneyUnknown
- The seat price is knowable and the credit consumption is not, so total cost at real usage cannot be modelled from the public page. Nor have we measured whether the scoring is good enough to change a shortlist.
- ScalabilityFair
- Per-seat pricing scales predictably, but the tiers cap at 3 and 15 seats, so growth is a tier move rather than a line-item change, and the ATS write actions that make the product interesting for a team only appear at Team.
Our reading of the evidence on this page. No score, no formula.
Where it sits
- Discover
- Contact
- Outreach
- ATS
The SourcrLab bottom line
SourceGeek relaunched in August 2026 and is no longer the LinkedIn automation tool it was; the current product is a conversation-first recruiting assistant. What distinguishes it is not the candidate search on its own, which several tools now do from a plain-language brief, but the combination of that search with context read live out of the systems a team already runs and write-back into them behind an approval step that is on by default. The commercial model is public and readable at the seat level, and opaque at the credit level. The one question that decides the purchase is boring and checkable: open the connector catalogue, find your ATS, and see whether it says live or coming soon.
Best fit
A team whose ATS, inbox, calendar and files are settled and who keep losing time carrying context between them: asking one place who in the pipeline fits a new role, getting a scored answer with the evidence attached, and pushing a note or a pipeline update back without opening the ATS.
Think twice if
Read the connector catalogue before the homepage. The homepage shows logos for systems the catalogue marks coming soon, and if yours is among them, what you would be buying today is the search half of a product sold on the strength of both halves.
SourcrLab assessment
Everything on this page comes from the vendor's own pages, checked on the dates below. SourcrLab has not used this product in real recruitment work, so you will not find a first-hand opinion here.
Why choose SourceGeek?
The context comes from your systems, not a re-typed prompt
The vendor's trust page states that SourceGeek does not sync, mirror or crawl connected systems, and fetches only the records a specific question needs before closing the connection. That design decision is why a question can be asked against live ATS and inbox content instead of a stale export, and it is also why there is no second copy of your candidate data sitting somewhere.
Scoring that shows its working
The feature page says candidates are scored against your job description with evidence attached to every match. A score without evidence is a number a recruiter has to trust or ignore; a score with the underlying signals is something a recruiter can disagree with, which is the only kind worth having in a shortlist conversation with a hiring manager.
Writing is gated by a human, by default
The trust page states that creates, updates, deletes and sends pause for human confirmation by default, that workspace admins decide how strict the policy is, and that every action on a connected system is logged with its outcome and its approver. Read the second half as carefully as the first: the safe behaviour is the default rather than a hard limit, so what protects you is the policy your own admins leave in place. For anyone who has had to explain to a client what an automated tool did to their pipeline, an approval step and a named approver in a log are the difference between a tool you can defend and one you cannot.
It does not ask you to move anything
The ATS stays the system of record, the inbox stays the inbox, and the evaluation is a 14-day trial with full access and no credit card rather than an implementation project. That keeps the downside of being wrong about this purchase unusually small, which is worth something in a category where most of the interesting products want to become the place the work lives.
Main trade-offs
The connector catalogue and the homepage do not agree
The homepage renders logos for Bullhorn, Greenhouse, Manatal, Teamtailor, Workable and BambooHR. In the connector catalogue all six are marked coming soon, alongside most of the HRIS, job-board, sourcing and interviewing lists. Live today is a shorter and more specific set, led by Ashby, Tellent Recruitee, Carerix, OTYS, Mysolution, Ubeeo and Homerun. Check the catalogue entry for your own system, not the logo wall.
An overlay is still another layer
Not owning the system of record is what makes this cheap to try, and it is also what caps it. Every answer depends on how good the data in the underlying systems already is, a broken connector is an outage in someone else's product, and the team ends up maintaining one more surface with its own permissions, its own admins and its own bill.
Team is where the product you read about starts
Starter carries personal connectors only: email, calendar and files. Shared threads and projects, the Slack and Teams bot, and workspace connectors with ATS write actions all sit at Team, at EUR 179 per seat per month billed yearly. So the collaboration and write-back story that makes this more than a search box costs 81 percent more per seat than the headline price, and both tiers cap at a seat count.
Credits are the part you cannot model
Seats and billing modes are fully published, so the fixed half of the bill is easy to model. Team is then described as pooled credits and Enterprise as a custom credit commitment, and the pricing page does not say what consumes a credit, how many a seat gets, or what happens when a workspace runs out mid-search. Ask for that in writing before signing, because it is the one variable left in this rate card that can move the invoice.
Governed by default, which is not the same as autonomous
Pausing every write and send for human confirmation is a genuine control, and it is also a ceiling on what the automations can finish on their own. It cuts both ways, because the vendor says workspace admins decide how strict the policy is: a buyer shopping for an agent that runs a desk overnight should read what can be relaxed, and a buyer who wants the guardrail should check who in their own workspace is allowed to loosen it.
Pricing and buying reality
Starter EUR 99 and Team EUR 179 per seat per month, both billed yearly; Enterprise on quote
- Starter: EUR 99 per seat per month billed yearly, or EUR 119 billed monthly, up to 3 seats, with candidate search and scoring, shortlists, sheets and research reports, personal connectors for email, calendar and files, automations and templates, and standard support
- Team: EUR 179 per seat per month billed yearly, or EUR 199 billed monthly, up to 15 seats with pooled credits, adding shared threads and projects, workspace connectors with ATS write actions, a Slack and Teams bot, usage analytics and premium support
- Enterprise: quoted, with unlimited seats on a custom credit commitment, SSO, role-based access control, an audit log, a dedicated account manager, and onboarding and training
- All plans start with a 14-day free trial with full access, and the vendor states that no credit card is required to start it; prices are stated excluding VAT
- Both billing modes come from the pricing page itself: it renders the yearly figures by default and publishes the monthly ones alongside them, in English and Dutch
What we do not know
- What consumes a credit, how many credits a seat or workspace receives, and what an overage costs
- What happens to a workspace and its authorised connectors when the trial ends without a subscription
- Whether the yearly price requires a twelve-month commitment or is simply a discount on a cancellable term
Checked on the vendor's pricing page, August 2026. SourceGeek pricing page
How it fits your stack
Works with
- Applicant tracking systems listed as live: Ashby, Tellent Recruitee, Carerix, OTYS, Mysolution, Ubeeo and Homerun
- Communication: Gmail, Outlook, Slack, Zoom, Teams Meetings and WhatsApp Business
- Calendars and scheduling: Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly and Cal.com
- Knowledge and files: Notion, Google Drive and OneDrive; CRM: Attio and HubSpot; data: Apollo.io, Lusha and the KVK Handelsregister
Likely replaces
- Manual profile searching and shortlist building from a role description
- Carrying candidate context by hand between the ATS, the inbox and a notes document
- Ad-hoc chatbot sessions where the recruiter pastes in the job description and the CVs every time
May overlap with
- AI sourcing agents that also score and reach out, such as Instalent and HeroHunt.ai
- Natural-language candidate search tools such as Juicebox
- AI assistants your ATS may already ship, which cover one system rather than several
Check before buying
- Whether your exact ATS appears as live in the connector catalogue, rather than as a logo on the homepage or as coming soon
- Which read and which write actions your specific connector supports, and that workspace connectors with ATS write actions require the Team tier
- What consumes a credit, how many each tier includes and what an overage costs, in writing before you sign, since it is the one figure the pricing page leaves out
- Who may approve a write or a send in your workspace, how strict your admins are allowed to leave that policy, and what a connector outage does to work in progress
- The scoring quality on twenty candidates you already know well, judged during the trial rather than after it
SourceGeek vs alternatives
Products a buyer would genuinely put next to this one, with the reason you would pick each instead.
Choose Instalent when verified contact details and multichannel outreach are the bottleneck, rather than a chat layer that reads and writes across the whole stack
Choose HeroHunt.ai when you want an agent that runs the outbound cycle itself, rather than an assistant you drive turn by turn from a conversation
Choose Juicebox when plain-language candidate search is the whole job and you have no interest in connecting the tool to your ATS, inbox and calendar
Used SourceGeek?
Tell other recruiters what worked, what did not, and who it suits. Positive, mixed or critical — all useful.
Evidence
- SourceGeek's founder told SourcrLab on 20 August 2026 that the company had relaunched its site and that the current product has nothing to do with LinkedIn automation, and asked SourcrLab to rebuild this profile from the new site — vendor claim, not independently verified
- The current product is presented as an AI assistant for recruiters that finds candidates, scores them with evidence, writes outreach and takes action in the ATS, email and Slack — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek product site
- The vendor states that it searches millions of profiles and scores every match with evidence against the job description — vendor claim, not independently verified: SourceGeek features page
- The product connects to ATS, email, calendar and files through official APIs, and offers projects, shared chats, templates and background automations — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek features page
- Pricing is Starter EUR 99 and Team EUR 179 per seat per month billed yearly, or EUR 119 and EUR 199 billed monthly, Enterprise on quote, with a 14-day free trial and prices excluding VAT. The same figures render on the English and Dutch pricing pages and are carried in the page's own published values — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek pricing page
- No credit card is required to start the free trial — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek features page
- Workspace connectors with ATS write actions, shared threads and projects, and the Slack and Teams bot are listed on the Team tier and not on Starter — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek pricing page
- The connector catalogue lists Ashby, Tellent Recruitee, Carerix, OTYS, Mysolution, Ubeeo and Homerun as live applicant tracking systems, and marks Bullhorn, Greenhouse, Manatal, Teamtailor, Workable, Workday, BambooHR and LinkedIn as coming soon — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek connector catalogue
- The Tellent Recruitee connector page documents candidates, offers, search, notes and pipeline updates, and describes searching and updating the ATS from chat — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek connector detail, Tellent Recruitee
- The Ashby connector page documents candidate search, applications, jobs, interviews, offers and feedback — checked against a primary source: SourceGeek connector detail, Ashby
- The vendor states that it does not sync, mirror or crawl connected systems, that model providers do not store or train on prompts and outputs, that creates, updates, deletes and sends pause for human confirmation by default with workspace admins deciding how strict the policy is, that actions are logged with outcome and approver, that connector credentials and OAuth tokens are AES-256 encrypted, and that deleting a workspace erases its content leaving only a content-free deletion receipt for 90 days — vendor claim, not independently verified: SourceGeek trust and data protection page
- Whether those data-protection statements are independently certified: no SOC 2 or ISO 27001 attestation was found on the public pages, and SourcrLab has not verified any of them — not enough evidence
- What a credit is, how many a seat or workspace receives, and what an overage costs — not enough evidence
- The quality of the candidate scoring, the coverage of the profile data behind it, and any effect on response rates or time to hire — not enough evidence
- SourcrLab has not used this product in real recruitment work. — not enough evidence
Last reviewed: August 2026. How SourcrLab verifies information
Work at SourceGeek?
Email us to verify this profile or suggest a factual update.