Gane Index
All indexesEvery index and its categoriesGTMMarketing, sales, customer and revenue operations softwareITSecurity, IT operations, cloud, developer and data softwareHRHR, payroll, recruiting, performance and learning softwareFinanceAccounting, planning, spend, billing and treasury software
Claim your listing
Index › HR › Talent acquisition › AI recruiting assistants › Manatal vs Ashby
AI recruiting assistants · November 2026 Edition

Manatal vs Ashby

Zero of fourteen models named Manatal first on the direct prompt; six named Ashby. Manatal was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Ashby by twelve and Manatal carries 24 labels and Ashby 28, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Manatal

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Ashby

accepted challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

First-choice share21%15%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%7%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2428A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Manatal reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Workable vs Manatal · Workable vs Ashby · Manatal vs Greenhouse

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the AI recruiting assistants page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ManatalFirst choices, of fourteen modelsAshby
Direct06
Paraphrase12
Comparative00
Budget-constrained100
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Ashby
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Manatal and Ashby stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.20
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Manatal Ashby first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Manatal on the left and Ashby on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Manatal and Ashby stood in it.

Ashby first, Manatal not the choice

6 of 14 modelsManatal was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Claude Haiku 4.5Ashby alternatives: Gem, Greenhouse, Lever
GPT-5.4 miniAshby, Greenhouse alternatives: Ceipal, Lever, Recruiterflow, Zoho Recruit
Perplexity SonarAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever
Qwen 3.7 FlashAshby alternatives: Gem, HireVue, Paradox, X-Team
Kimi K2Ashby alternatives: Workable
GPT-6 LunaAshby alternatives: Gem

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem, Juicebox alternatives: Ashby, Fetcher, Findem, Metaview
Grok 4.20Recruiterflow alternatives: Ashby, Braintrust AIR, Findem, Greenhouse, HireVue, SeekOut
DeepSeek V4 FlashGem alternatives: Ashby, Greenhouse, SeekOut, Workable

Neither was named

5 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Mistral SmallGreenhouse, Workable
Llama 4 MaverickTheHireHub.AI alternatives: Humanly, Workable
GLM 4.7 FlashXTheHireHub.AI alternatives: Gem, Leelu AI, Workable, hireEZ
MiniMax M2.5Leelu AI, Workable alternatives: Braintrust AIR, HRBlade, SeekOut
Muse Glimmer 30BGreenhouse, Workable alternatives: Paradox, SeekOut, hireEZ

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Manatal leads by twenty-eight points.
Manatal30%#1 of 11
Ashby2%#7 of 11
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Manatal leads by six points.
Manatal21%#2 of 13
Ashby15%#3 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Manatal0%#– of 13
Ashby0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Manatal

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.

“For most small companies with limited budgets, Manatal offers the best balance of AI features, functionality, and affordability” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Ashby

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“including Greenhouse, Lever, and Ashby, may be in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)” Qwen 3.7 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative
“Ashby (potential FCRA issues in consumer reporting)” Grok 4.20 · negative prompt · soft negative
Also compared
Workable vs ManatalWorkable vs AshbyManatal vs GreenhouseManatal vs Zoho RecruitManatal vs GemManatal vs ParadoxAshby vs GreenhouseAshby vs Zoho RecruitAshby vs GemAshby vs ParadoxAll twenty-one head-to-head pages and the full AI recruiting assistants standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.