Greenhouse
Workable
| Feature | Greenhouse | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | Contact sales | From $149/mo |
| Free Plan | ✗ No | ✗ No |
| Rating | 4.4 / 5 | 4.3 / 5 |
| Best For | mid-size-companies, enterprise, hr-teams, talent-teams | growing-companies, hr-teams, recruiters, startups |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
| Ats | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured Interviews | ✓ | ✗ |
| Dei Tools | ✓ | ✗ |
| Onboarding | ✓ | ✗ |
| Analytics | ✓ | ✗ |
| Integrations | ✓ | ✗ |
| Ai Sourcing | ✗ | ✓ |
| Job Posting | ✗ | ✓ |
| Interview Scheduling | ✗ | ✓ |
| Offer Management | ✗ | ✓ |
| Reporting | ✗ | ✓ |
✓ Greenhouse Pros
- Structured hiring
- DEI features
- Great integrations
- Detailed analytics
✗ Greenhouse Cons
- Expensive
- Complex setup
- Overkill for small companies
✓ Workable Pros
- Great job board reach
- AI candidate sourcing
- Easy to use
- Good reporting
✗ Workable Cons
- Expensive
- Limited HR beyond recruiting
- Video interview extra
The Verdict
Greenhouse is built for mid size companies and enterprise, with a focus on ats and structured-interviews. Workable targets growing companies and hr teams and leads with ats and ai-sourcing.
Greenhouse uses custom enterprise pricing, while Workable starts at $149/mo — a tangible advantage for teams with a fixed budget.
Neither tool offers a free plan, so factor the subscription cost into your decision from the start.
Both tools are a solid fit for hr teams — in those cases, the decision often comes down to workflow style and how your team prefers to organize work.
This is a genuinely close comparison. If you can, sign up for both free trials (where available) and run a one-week test with your actual team tasks before deciding.