Enterprise talent acquisition teams managing multi-department requisitions, offer approvals, and talent CRMs.
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 Enterprise
Ashby is the top-recommended platform for Enterprise. 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 Enterprise. 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 | Native sourcing CRM, pipeline analytics, and unlimited seats on Foundations (flat fee to 100 employees). | CRM is not the core Greenhouse motion; outbound nurture trails Lever/Ashby. |
| 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 plus analytics for enterprise talent ops; OFCCP audit files still trail Greenhouse Structured Hiring. | EEO/OFCCP reporting plus SAML 2.0 SSO and 400+ integrations for federal contractors and global HRIS stacks. |
| 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 Enterprise, stage automation has to survive requisition freezes, adverse-impact funnel files, and executive-search bypasses. Ashby vs Greenhouse cannot treat a sourcing extension as the system of record if OFCCP needs a reconstructable pipeline Enterprise can hand legal.
For Enterprise, structured interview kits are an audit artifact. Ashby or Greenhouse must enforce scorecards, store GDPR candidate consent with the application, and prove every interviewer used the same kit. Feedback loops that live in email are a works-council finding waiting to happen.
For Enterprise, the offer approval chain includes compensation-committee signoff, legal, and sometimes a works council. Ashby vs Greenhouse has to freeze the offer letter until that chain clears and still log who approved what. A self-serve send is a policy breach Enterprise will not survive.
For Enterprise, stage automation must survive requisition freezes, adverse-impact funnel files, and OFCCP reconstruction. Ashby vs Greenhouse cannot let a sourcing extension be the system of record. Adverse-impact reporting on the pipeline is a buying criterion Enterprise legal will raise in the RFP.
For Enterprise, structured interview kits are evidence. Ashby vs Greenhouse must store GDPR candidate consent with the application and prove every interviewer used the same kit. Feedback loops in email are a works-council issue Enterprise will not accept.
For Enterprise, the offer approval chain includes compensation-committee signoff, legal, and sometimes a works council. Ashby vs Greenhouse has to freeze the offer letter until that chain clears and log approvers. A self-serve send is a policy breach Enterprise procurement will reject.
Ready to act on this Enterprise evaluation of Ashby vs Greenhouse?