Index › HR › Talent acquisition › Applicant tracking syste › Workable vs Manatal
Applicant tracking systems · November 2026 Edition

Workable vs Manatal

Four of fourteen models named Workable first on the direct prompt; zero named Manatal. Workable was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Manatal by ten and Workable carries 42 labels and Manatal 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Workable

accepted challenger

Named in fourteen categories this edition.

Manatal

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

First-choice share16%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%7%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#8A position in a field of 17; printed, not drawn.
Labels4214A 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.Greenhouse was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Greenhouse vs Workable · Greenhouse vs Manatal · Workable vs Breezy HR

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 applicant tracking systems 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 modelsManatal
Direct401 against Workable
Paraphrase40
Comparative30
Budget-constrained02
Scale-constrained10
Negative001 against Workable · 1 against Manatal
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 Manatal were named in the same answer 122 times, of the 367 answers naming Workable and the 314 naming Manatal. In those answers Manatal took the first choice thirty-nine times and Workable eighteen.

Every model, every framing

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

The direct prompt

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

Workable first, Manatal not the choice

4 of 14 modelsManatal was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallWorkable alternatives: Ashby, Greenhouse, Lever, Zoho Recruit
GLM 4.7 FlashXBreezy HR, Workable alternatives: Ashby, Crelate
MiniMax M2.5Breezy HR, Workable alternatives: Ashby, BambooHR, Greenhouse, JazzHR
Muse Glimmer 30BGreenhouse, Lever, Workable alternatives: Ashby, BambooHR

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5no first choice alternatives: BambooHR, Greenhouse, Jobvite, Lever, Workable
GPT-5.4 miniGreenhouse alternatives: Lever, Workable
Perplexity SonarGreenhouse alternatives: Ashby, Lever, Pinpoint, Workable
Grok 4.20Greenhouse alternatives: Ashby, Workable

Neither was named

6 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Gemini 3.5 FlashAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever, Pinpoint
DeepSeek V4 FlashAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashAshby, Greenhouse alternatives: Lever, SmartRecruiters
Kimi K2Greenhouse alternatives: Ashby, Lever
GPT-6 LunaAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever

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 nine points.
Workable14%#3 of 14
Manatal5%#6 of 14
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Workable leads by twelve points.
Workable16%#2 of 17
Manatal4%#8 of 17
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Workable leads by seven points.
Workable7%#– of 10
Manatal0%#– of 10
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. Four of four in this category shown.

“users report issues with the company's customer support, and its pricing model raises concerns about high costs” Claude Haiku 4.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“Avoid Workday Recruiting and SmartRecruiters unless you have enterprise-level needs” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“For a 500-person company, Workable or Recruitee often hit the sweet spot of capability, transparency, and adoption.” Kimi K2 · scale prompt · first choice
“Workable – Highly rated for its ease of use, strong candidate tracking, and excellent job distribution features.” Mistral Small · paraphrase prompt · first choice

What the models said about Manatal

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

“May feel cumbersome for managing large candidate pools.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“The best applicant tracking system for a company with a limited budget is Manatal, which is available at $15 per user a month” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice
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.