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 (1,800+ reviews)
Based on G2 & Industry Benchmark user reviews
Compliance standards, native integrations, support SLAs, deployment type, and ideal headcount for Ashby vs Lever.
| Capability | Ashby | Lever |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance Standards | Compliance Standards:
| Compliance Standards:
|
| Native Integrations | Native Integrations:
| Native Integrations:
|
| Support & SLAs | Support & SLAs: Dedicated CSM, Ticketed support, Knowledge Base | Support & SLAs: Dedicated CSM, Ticketed support, Knowledge Base |
| Deployment Type | Deployment Type: Cloud / SaaS | Deployment Type: Cloud / SaaS |
| Ideal Headcount | Ideal Headcount: 50–250 seats | Ideal Headcount: 50–250 seats |
The bottom line for Agencies
Ashby is the top-recommended platform for Agencies. It is the stronger overall fit for this workflow. Lever is the stronger alternative when you need outbound crm & candidate nurture.
Detailed capability breakdown tailored for Agencies. Checkmarks indicate native platform support, while crosses highlight functional gaps or required third-party integrations.
| Capability | Ashby | Lever |
|---|---|---|
| Structured scorecards | Structured scorecards plus AI interview summaries; scorecard rigor is configurable rather than Greenhouse-hardcoded methodology. | Scorecards exist but are secondary to CRM nurture; less audit-rigid than Greenhouse Structured Hiring. |
| Sourcing CRM & client portals | CRM is strong for in-house talent teams; there is no staffing client-submission portal comparable to agency ATSs. | CRM helps agency-like outbound; there is still no client submission portal for staffing desks. |
| Scheduling & async video | Multi-time-zone self-scheduling with interviewer load analytics; not a separate Calendly dependency. | Visual pipeline plus scheduling; multi-language career sites are not a Recruitee-level strength. |
| Career site & job boards | No one-click 200-board syndication like Workable. Career site is first-party; job boards are integrations. | No Workable-style one-click 200-board blast; sourcing is CRM-led rather than syndication-led. |
| EEO / OFCCP compliance | GDPR tools shipped; OFCCP/EEO reporting is lighter than Greenhouse’s dedicated DEI compliance suite. | GDPR tooling shipped; OFCCP depth trails Greenhouse. Checkr is integration, not a native matrix win. |
| Reporting & analytics | Recruiting analytics are the product: funnel conversion, source ROI, and pipeline velocity in-product. | Reporting is adequate; native analytics are thinner than Ashby’s funnel engine. |
| Checkr, SMS & integrations | Modern HRIS/assessment connectors; Checkr is not a native matrix item; background checks are partner/integration, not Greenhouse-deep. | Core HRIS/assessment integrations; background-check marketplace is narrower than Greenhouse’s 400+ catalog. |
| Seat / usage pricing | $400/month Foundations flat fee to 100 employees, unlimited recruiter seats, no published free trial. | Custom annual quote; no published starter price and no unlimited-seat flat tier. |
For Agencies, pipeline stages are client-tagged submittals, not a single in-house req. Ashby vs Lever 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 Lever 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 Lever 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 Lever 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 Lever 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 Lever 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 Lever?