Staffing and recruitment agencies managing multi-client candidate pipelines, requisitions, and placement tracking.
Disclosure: The HR Stack Guide is an independent comparison guide. We may earn a commission if you sign up through our links at no extra cost to you. Read full disclosure.
Primary Terms & Pricing Audited Q3 2026 | Unbiased Data
⭐️ 4.7/5 (400+ reviews)
Based on G2 & Industry Benchmark user reviews
⭐️ 4.4/5 (2,000+ reviews)
Based on G2 & Industry Benchmark user reviews
Compliance standards, native integrations, support SLAs, deployment type, and ideal headcount for Ashby vs Greenhouse.
| Capability | Ashby | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Standards | Compliance Standards:
| Compliance Standards:
|
| Native Integrations | Native Integrations:
| Native Integrations:
|
| Support & SLAs | Support & SLAs: Dedicated CSM, Ticketed support, Knowledge Base | Support & SLAs: 24/7 Enterprise Support, Dedicated CSM, Knowledge Base |
| Deployment Type | Deployment Type: Cloud / SaaS | Deployment Type: Cloud / SaaS |
| Ideal Headcount | Ideal Headcount: 50–250 seats | Ideal Headcount: 250–1000+ enterprise |
The bottom line for Agencies
Ashby is the top-recommended platform for Agencies. It is the stronger overall fit for this workflow. Greenhouse is the stronger alternative when you need enterprise structured hiring.
Detailed capability breakdown tailored for Agencies. Checkmarks indicate native platform support, while crosses highlight functional gaps or required third-party integrations.
| Capability | Ashby | Greenhouse |
|---|---|---|
| Structured scorecards | Structured scorecards plus AI interview summaries; scorecard rigor is configurable rather than Greenhouse-hardcoded methodology. | Structured Hiring scorecards are the methodology: every interview stage is auditable for later OFCCP review. |
| Sourcing CRM & client portals | CRM is strong for in-house talent teams; there is no staffing client-submission portal comparable to agency ATSs. | No staffing client portal. Greenhouse is an in-house enterprise ATS, not a submission ATS for agencies. |
| Scheduling & async video | Multi-time-zone self-scheduling with interviewer load analytics; not a separate Calendly dependency. | Self-scheduling plus interview kit enforcement; global language support on career sites. |
| Career site & job boards | No one-click 200-board syndication like Workable. Career site is first-party; job boards are integrations. | Global job-board postings and branded career site as a first-class enterprise module. |
| EEO / OFCCP compliance | GDPR tools shipped; OFCCP/EEO reporting is lighter than Greenhouse’s dedicated DEI compliance suite. | Best-in-class EEO/OFCCP and DEI reporting for US federal contractors and audit-ready hiring files. |
| Reporting & analytics | Recruiting analytics are the product: funnel conversion, source ROI, and pipeline velocity in-product. | Standard recruiting reports plus compliance dashboards; less “productized analytics” than Ashby. |
| Checkr, SMS & integrations | Modern HRIS/assessment connectors; Checkr is not a native matrix item; background checks are partner/integration, not Greenhouse-deep. | 400+ native integrations including Checkr background checks, HRIS, and assessments. |
| Seat / usage pricing | $400/month Foundations flat fee to 100 employees, unlimited recruiter seats, no published free trial. | Quote-only annual contracts; no unlimited-seat Foundations SKU and no self-serve free trial. |
For Agencies, pipeline stages are client-tagged submittals, not a single in-house req. Ashby vs Greenhouse must stop duplicate-candidate collisions across retainers and let a sourcing extension push prospects into the right client pipeline without mixing confidential rosters Agencies cannot leak. A confidential-roster firewall is the buying test.
For Agencies, the interviewer is often the client. Structured interview kits have to travel as a client-facing scorecard, not an internal-only form. Ashby or Greenhouse fails if feedback loops cannot be exported per retainer. GDPR candidate consent must be captured before Agencies redistributes a CV across accounts.
For Agencies, the offer approval chain is the client plus the agency lead, not an internal budget owner. Ashby vs Greenhouse should keep the offer letter, fee-on-placement ledger, and guarantee window on one placement record Agencies can invoice from.
For Agencies, pipelines are client-tagged, not one company req list. Ashby vs Greenhouse must catch duplicate candidates across retainers. A sourcing extension that cannot target a client pipeline will mix confidential rosters Agencies is contracted to keep separate behind a confidential-roster firewall.
For Agencies, the interviewer is often the hiring client. Structured interview kits have to export as a client scorecard. Ashby vs Greenhouse fails if feedback loops cannot be retainer-scoped. GDPR candidate consent is required before Agencies redistributes a CV to a second account.
For Agencies, the offer approval chain is client plus agency lead. Ashby vs Greenhouse should keep the offer letter, fee-on-placement ledger, and guarantee on one record Agencies invoices from. Internal-only requisition approvals that ignore the client will not close retained search.
Ready to act on this Agencies evaluation of Ashby vs Greenhouse?