Greenhouse vs Ashby: Which Applicant Tracking System Fits Your Team?

Short answer: Pick Ashby if you have at least one full-time recruiter, want a price you can budget before a sales call and prefer one integrated system. Pick Greenhouse if you hire in volume, run many hiring managers through the same scorecards and accept a quote-based purchase. Small teams that hire a few roles a year should look at lighter tools first.

Side by side

How are Greenhouse and Ashby different?

Greenhouse is built around structured hiring, and Ashby is built around having one system instead of several. Greenhouse is the established choice for companies that want every interview to follow the same rubric. Its product covers sourcing, scheduling, reporting, onboarding and a growing set of AI tools.

Ashby makes a different pitch: applicant tracking, CRM and sourcing, scheduling and analytics sit in one product, so a team does not stitch an ATS to separate reporting and outreach tools. Its plans are split by company size, which means the entry tier is aimed at small teams and the higher tiers at larger ones.

In our applicant tracking systems ranking, Ashby is first and Greenhouse second. Ashby ranks higher for breadth and a published price. Greenhouse sits second because it is the safest pick for a team with several recruiters and many hiring managers.

How do Greenhouse and Ashby pricing compare?

Ashby lets you see a starting number, and Greenhouse does not. Ashby publishes Foundations at $400 per month for the default selection, with a 10 percent discount for annual payment. Plus and Enterprise are priced on request.

Greenhouse sells Core, Plus and Pro plans on a customized quote based on hiring needs and complexity. No amounts are published, so a mid-sized buyer cannot compare costs before a sales call. The plan names also do not reveal which features sit in which tier.

Published does not mean all-in. Ashby charges separately for candidate texting ($90 per 1,000 messages) and single sign-on ($100 per month), and data enrichment and several sourcing features are also add-ons. Ask both vendors for a written quote that lists every module you expect to use, and compare the totals.

Which one covers more of the hiring workflow?

Both cover tracking, scheduling and reporting, and they differ in where the extras come from. Greenhouse adds talent sourcing, onboarding, an interview notetaker, voice AI interviews and fraud checks that flag fake applicants. Its own site states more than 7,500 customer companies, which is a vendor claim, not an audited figure.

Ashby adds a CRM, sourcing tools, candidate texting, single sign-on and an AI notetaker. Its analytics are unusual because they can be bought on top of another ATS, so a team already on a different system can use Ashby for reporting alone.

The practical difference is configuration. Greenhouse's newer AI additions widen the product surface, which makes setup heavier than in a lean tool. Ashby's breadth means a team of two may pay for analytics or sourcing tools it never opens.

What does each one do badly?

Greenhouse is weakest on price transparency and on weight for small teams. Quotes are customized, the AI additions make configuration heavier, and small teams pay for structure they will not use. It is a poor fit for companies that hire a few roles a year or want a published monthly price.

Ashby is weakest on add-ons and on tier prices. Plus and Enterprise prices are not public, texting, single sign-on, data enrichment and several sourcing features cost extra, and nothing on the pricing page mentions a free trial.

Companies hiring two or three people a year should look at Homerun or Breezy HR instead of either tool. Buyers who need EU-based contracting by default should start with Teamtailor or Recruitee.

How should you decide between Greenhouse and Ashby?

Start from your recruiting team, not from the feature list. With one full-time recruiter and a company of 100 to 1,000 people, Ashby is the product we would shortlist first. With several recruiters and a long line of hiring managers who need the same scorecards, Greenhouse is the safer default.

Next, ask for pricing in writing. For Ashby, request the cost of texting, single sign-on and any sourcing add-ons you want. For Greenhouse, ask which features each of Core, Plus and Pro includes before you accept a quote.

Finally, run a pilot on one open role with real hiring managers. Both vendors are US-based, so check data processing terms and where your candidate data is stored against your own rules. Facts on pricing and features on this page come from the vendors' own pages and may change.

Frequently asked questions

Is Greenhouse or Ashby better for a small company?

Neither is the lightest option. Ashby has a published $400 per month entry price and a plan sized for small teams, so it is easier to budget. Companies hiring only a few roles a year should compare Homerun or Breezy HR first.

Does Ashby publish its prices?

Partly. Foundations is published at $400 per month for the default selection, with a 10 percent annual discount. Plus and Enterprise are priced on request, and texting, single sign-on and some sourcing features cost extra.

Does Greenhouse publish its prices?

No. Greenhouse sells Core, Plus and Pro plans on a customized quote based on hiring needs and complexity, and no amounts are published on its pricing page.

Which has better AI features, Greenhouse or Ashby?

Greenhouse lists more: an interview notetaker, voice AI interviews and fraud detection for fake applicants. Ashby lists an AI notetaker. We have not tested output quality for either, so ask for a live demo on your own roles.

Can I use Ashby analytics with another ATS?

Yes, according to our entry, Ashby's analytics can be bought on top of another applicant tracking system. Confirm supported integrations with Ashby before you commit.