Applicant tracking systems for companies hiring home-based staff, compared on scorecards, interview scheduling, candidate experience and whether hiring managers will actually use the tool from their own desks.
Remote hiring runs almost entirely through the ATS. Interviews, feedback and offer approvals happen in the software rather than in a hallway, so hiring managers have to adopt it. Research on this category names hiring manager enablement as the implementation step companies most often skip and later regret.
Greenhouse suits remote teams that want every interviewer scoring against the same scorecard, which keeps scores comparable when panels never sit together. The cost is high: Greenhouse is quote-based, with its mid-tier Plus plan estimated at $17,000 to $36,000 a year for companies of 101 to 250 employees. Ashby bundles interview scheduling, a candidate CRM and recruiting analytics, with a Foundations plan at $400 per month for companies of up to 100 employees.
Pinpoint is built for employers with 100 to 1,000 staff who treat employer brand and candidate experience as a hiring advantage, useful when the careers site is a candidate's main view of a home-based company. For smaller remote teams where hiring is a side job, JazzHR's Hero plan costs $1,000 a year billed annually or $99 a month billed monthly, and Workable starts at $299 a month billed annually for companies with 1 to 20 employees. Neither JazzHR nor Workable includes a candidate CRM.
Published price means the vendor shows a figure; quote only means it does not. The best-fit and tradeoff lines are each tool's own.
Showing 14 of 14
| Tool | Published price | Best for | Main tradeoff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pinpoint | ~$600-$800/month (estimated) | Best for mid-market in-house talent teams that want an ATS with stronger employer-brand presentation, cleaner candidate communication, and a more candidate-friendly application flow. | The tradeoff is that Pinpoint is not the analytics-first or structured-hiring-first ATS in the field, so buyers should validate reporting depth and process rigor early. |
| ClearCompany | ~$6-$8 PEPM (estimated) | Best for mid-market teams that want an ATS plus onboarding continuity, and that expect recruiting data to flow into downstream talent management rather than stop at the offer stage. | The tradeoff is that the ATS is more integrated than best-in-class on pure recruiting depth, so process-heavy hiring teams should compare it carefully against deeper specialist platforms. |
| Manatal | $15/user/month | Best for SMB hiring teams and lean talent functions that want a lower-cost ATS with candidate recommendations, straightforward pipeline management, and a fast trial-led evaluation path. | The tradeoff is that Manatal is better at accessible ATS functionality and lightweight AI assistance than deep analytics, structured hiring governance, or enterprise extensibility. |
| Homebase | Free; paid from $24/location/mo (annual) | Best for restaurants, retail, and other hourly teams that want basic applicant tracking, job posting, and candidate handoff into onboarding and shift scheduling inside one system. | The tradeoff is that Homebase should be treated as a lighter ATS for hourly hiring rather than a full-featured applicant tracking system for structured, multi-stakeholder recruiting teams. |
| GreenhouseSponsored | ~$5,100/yr for small teams (est.) | Greenhouse is best for dedicated recruiting teams and talent acquisition leaders at companies with 100 to 5,000 employees who hire 50 or more people per year and care about hiring quality and process consistency. | Greenhouse pricing is a premium that smaller teams struggle to justify |
| Lever | ~$6,000/yr for small teams (est.) | Lever is best for recruiting teams at companies with 100 to 1,000 employees that source passive candidates as a core hiring strategy and need CRM functionality integrated into their ATS. | Lever pricing is not transparent, giving the vendor negotiation advantage over buyers |
| Ashby | $400/mo (up to 100 employees) | Ashby is best for tech companies and startups with 50 to 1,000 employees that hire actively and want a single platform for applicant tracking, candidate relationship management, interview scheduling, and recruiting analytics. | Ashby's size-based pricing penalizes large companies with low hiring volume |
| Tracker | quote only | Best for staffing firms and search teams that want an ATS with built-in CRM depth, recruiter workflow coverage, and commercial structure that matches agency recruiting. | The tradeoff is that Tracker is more staffing-oriented than employer-brand-first, so internal TA teams should validate whether the workflow feels agency-heavy for their use case. |
| AvaHR | $119/month, or $99/month billed annually | Best for SMB teams that want an easier ATS to stand up quickly, post roles broadly, and keep hiring managers involved without a heavy recruiting operations layer. | The tradeoff is that AvaHR is better at accessible ATS workflow and hiring speed than deep analytics, staffing-agency workflow, or highly customized enterprise process design. |
| Zoho Recruit | quote only | Best for recruiting teams and staffing operations that want an ATS with stronger customization, automation, portals, and a natural fit with the wider Zoho stack. | The tradeoff is that Zoho Recruit can ask more of the team in setup and administration, so buyers should make sure they actually need the flexibility they are paying for. |
| Recruit CRM | $95 per user/mo billed annually (Business $135, Enterprise $215) | Best for recruitment agencies and executive search teams that want ATS plus CRM coverage, recruiter automation, and mobile-friendly workflow without stitching multiple systems together. | The tradeoff is that Recruit CRM is more agency-centric than internal TA-centric, so in-house recruiting teams should validate fit before assuming the workflow maps cleanly to them. |
| Boon | quote only | Best for talent teams that want referrals to do more of the hiring work and need a system that activates, tracks, and automates referral-driven candidate flow alongside the ATS. | The tradeoff is that Boon should be treated as a referral hiring layer that complements applicant tracking, not as a full ATS replacement for complex recruiting operations. |
| JazzHR | $1,000/yr (Hero, billed annually) | JazzHR is best for small business owners, HR managers, and office administrators at companies with 10 to 100 employees who handle hiring alongside other responsibilities. | JazzHR sourcing capabilities are nearly nonexistent for proactive recruiting |
| Workable | $299/mo billed annually (1-20 staff) | Workable is best for talent acquisition teams and HR managers at fast-growing SMBs with 50 to 500 employees that have active, ongoing hiring needs. It fits companies that post multiple roles simultaneously, want AI assistance with candidate screening and sourcing, and need a single platform that covers recruiting through onboarding. | Workable pricing penalizes small teams with low hiring volume relative to headcount |
Want this applicant tracking systems shortlist kept current?
We re-check every price on this page against the vendor's own rate card. Leave an email and we will tell you when a figure here moves.
Only if recruiters reach out to passive candidates rather than waiting for applications. Lever pairs its ATS with CRM functionality for teams with three or more recruiters doing outbound work. Pinpoint relies on integrations such as LinkedIn Recruiter or Gem for sourcing, and JazzHR has no sourcing tools at all.
