Interview scheduling · November 2026 Edition
Cal.com vs Greenhouse
Zero of fourteen models named Cal.com first on the direct prompt; zero named Greenhouse. Cal.com was named by nine of the fourteen models and Greenhouse by thirteen and both carry 23 labels, so the shares below are directly comparable.
Named in three categories this edition.
Named in fourteen categories this edition.
First-choice share8%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate13%13%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#5#7A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels2323Equal, which is what makes the shares comparable.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Cal.com reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.ModernLoop was named alongside these two in thirteen of the fourteen direct answers. ModernLoop vs Cal.com · ModernLoop vs Greenhouse · Calendly vs Cal.com
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 interview scheduling page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
Cal.comFirst choices, of fourteen modelsGreenhouse
Direct001 against Cal.com
Paraphrase121 against Greenhouse
Comparative40
Budget-constrained30
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Cal.com · 2 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.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Cal.com and Greenhouse stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | | |
Cal.com Greenhouse first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Cal.com on the left and Greenhouse on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Cal.com and Greenhouse stood in it.
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.GPT-5.4 miniGoodTime alternatives: Ashby, Calendly, Greenhouse, Lever
Perplexity SonarGoodTime alternatives: Ashby, Cal.com, Lever, ModernLoop
Qwen 3.7 FlashCalendly, ModernLoop alternatives: GoodTime, Greenhouse, Lever
MiniMax M2.5ModernLoop alternatives: Cal.com, GoodTime, VidCruiter
Neither was named
10 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5ModernLoop alternatives: Ashby, GoodTime, Prelude
Gemini 3.5 FlashModernLoop alternatives: Ashby, GoodTime, candidate.fyi
Grok 4.20ModernLoop alternatives: Grayscale, Prelude
Mistral SmallGoodTime alternatives: Calendly, ModernLoop, Paradox
DeepSeek V4 FlashModernLoop alternatives: Calendly
Llama 4 MaverickModernLoop alternatives: Calendly, GoodTime
Kimi K2ModernLoop alternatives: GoodTime
GLM 4.7 FlashXModernLoop alternatives: GoodTime, Grayscale
GPT-6 LunaModernLoop alternatives: Ashby's native scheduling, GoodTime
Muse Glimmer 30BModernLoop alternatives: Grayscale, Prelude
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
Cal.com leads by eleven points.
Cal.com11%#3 of 16Greenhouse0%#13 of 16Mid-marketThe figures above
Enterprise
The order flips: Greenhouse leads at enterprise.
Greenhouse9%#4 of 13Cal.com2%#7 of 13What the models said about Cal.com
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“General-purpose schedulers such as Calendly, Cal.com, Koalendar, or YouCanBookMe: ... verify panel coordination, candidate routing, ATS write-back” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative
“Cal.com - Recent Concerns ... Production code went private; public repo became "Cal.diy"” MiniMax M2.5 · negative prompt · soft negative
“less proven for pure recruiting at mid-market scale” Grok 4.20 · direct prompt · soft negative
“Cal.com is positioned as the best overall interview scheduling software for flexibility, customization, routing, and transparent pricing.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Cal.com – best overall free & open source ... 1 user, zero budget, want unlimited event types: Cal.com free.” Muse Glimmer 30B · budget prompt · first choice
“For most teams, start with Cal.com (balanced and flexible) or Calendly (if simplicity is key).” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
What the models said about Greenhouse
No label in this category carried a quote.
Also compared
ModernLoop vs Cal.comModernLoop vs GreenhouseCalendly vs Cal.comCalendly vs GreenhouseGoodTime vs Cal.comGoodTime vs GreenhouseKoalendar vs Cal.comKoalendar vs GreenhouseCal.com vs LeverCal.com vs PreludeLever vs GreenhouseGreenhouse vs PreludeAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full interview scheduling 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.