Index › HR › Talent acquisition › AI recruiting assistants › Workable vs Greenhouse
AI recruiting assistants · November 2026 Edition

Workable vs Greenhouse

Three of fourteen models named Workable first on the direct prompt; three named Greenhouse. Workable was named by thirteen of the fourteen models and Greenhouse by fourteen and Workable carries 33 labels and Greenhouse 34, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Workable

accepted challenger

Named in fourteen categories this edition.

Greenhouse

accepted challenger

Named in fourteen categories this edition.

First-choice share23%8%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate3%12%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#1#4A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels3334A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Workable reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Ashby was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Workable vs Manatal · Workable vs Ashby · Workable vs Zoho Recruit

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.
WorkableFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGreenhouse
Direct331 against Greenhouse
Paraphrase811 against Greenhouse
Comparative00
Budget-constrained101 against Workable
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Greenhouse
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.

Across every category in the November 2026 Edition, Workable and Greenhouse were named in the same answer 153 times, of the 367 answers naming Workable and the 456 naming Greenhouse. In those answers Greenhouse took the first choice twenty-four times and Workable thirty-nine.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Workable and Greenhouse 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
Workable Greenhouse first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Workable on the left and Greenhouse on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Both were the first choice

2 of 14 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.
Mistral SmallGreenhouse, Workable
Muse Glimmer 30BGreenhouse, Workable alternatives: Paradox, SeekOut, hireEZ

Workable first, Greenhouse not the choice

1 of 14 modelsGreenhouse was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
MiniMax M2.5Leelu AI, Workable alternatives: Braintrust AIR, HRBlade, SeekOut

Greenhouse first, Workable not the choice

1 of 14 modelsWorkable was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-5.4 miniAshby, Greenhouse alternatives: Ceipal, Lever, Recruiterflow, Zoho Recruit

Neither was the first choice, one was named

7 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5Ashby alternatives: Gem, Greenhouse, Lever
Perplexity SonarAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever
Grok 4.20Recruiterflow alternatives: Ashby, Braintrust AIR, Findem, Greenhouse, HireVue, SeekOut
DeepSeek V4 FlashGem alternatives: Ashby, Greenhouse, SeekOut, Workable
Llama 4 MaverickTheHireHub.AI alternatives: Humanly, Workable
Kimi K2Ashby alternatives: Workable
GLM 4.7 FlashXTheHireHub.AI alternatives: Gem, Leelu AI, Workable, hireEZ

Neither was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem, Juicebox alternatives: Ashby, Fetcher, Findem, Metaview
Qwen 3.7 FlashAshby alternatives: Gem, HireVue, Paradox, X-Team
GPT-6 LunaAshby alternatives: Gem

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
Workable leads by thirteen points.
Workable13%#3 of 11
Greenhouse0%#10 of 11
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Workable leads by fifteen points.
Workable23%#1 of 13
Greenhouse8%#4 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Workable leads by two points.
Workable4%#– of 13
Greenhouse2%#9 of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Workable

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

“Workable and Greenhouse are the best AI recruiters, with Workable being especially popular for its balance of AI features, ease of use, and value for mid-sized teams.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Greenhouse

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

“Avoid Greenhouse unless you specifically need enterprise-grade structured hiring workflows and are comfortable with custom pricing in the $10K+ range.” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
Also compared

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.