Recruiting CRM and sourcing · November 2026 Edition
Lever vs LinkedIn Recruiter
Zero of fourteen models named Lever first on the direct prompt; three named LinkedIn Recruiter. Both were named by all fourteen models and Lever carries 21 labels and LinkedIn Recruiter 30, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in twelve categories this edition.
Named in six categories this edition.
First-choice share8%6%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%20%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#4#5A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels2130A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Lever reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.hireEZ was named alongside these two in twelve of the fourteen direct answers. Gem vs Lever · Gem vs LinkedIn Recruiter · hireEZ vs Lever
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 Recruiting CRM and sourcing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
LeverFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLinkedIn Recruiter
Direct032 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Paraphrase40
Comparative04
Budget-constrained003 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Scale-constrained001 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Negative00
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 Lever and LinkedIn Recruiter 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 | |
Lever LinkedIn Recruiter first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Lever on the left and LinkedIn Recruiter on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Lever and LinkedIn Recruiter stood in it.
LinkedIn Recruiter first, Lever not the choice
3 of 14 modelsLever was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Claude Haiku 4.5LinkedIn Recruiter alternatives: Apollo.io, ZoomInfo
Gemini 3.5 FlashLinkedIn Recruiter alternatives: Fetcher, Findem, SeekOut, ZoomInfo Talent, hireEZ
GPT-6 LunaLinkedIn Recruiter alternatives: Gem, SeekOut
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.GPT-5.4 miniGem alternatives: LinkedIn Recruiter, Loxo, SeekOut, hireEZ
Perplexity SonarhireEZ alternatives: Gem, Lever, SeekOut, Workable
DeepSeek V4 FlashhireEZ alternatives: Fetcher, Gem, LinkedIn Recruiter, SeekOut
Neither was named
8 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Grok 4.20hireEZ alternatives: Findem, SeekOut
Mistral SmallGem, hireEZ alternatives: Fetcher, Findem
Llama 4 MaverickFetcher, Findem, Gem, hireEZ
Qwen 3.7 FlashGem alternatives: ContactOut, Fetcher, Lusha, hireEZ
Kimi K2Gem alternatives: SeekOut, hireEZ
GLM 4.7 FlashXFetcher, Gem alternatives: hireEZ
MiniMax M2.5Gem, SeekOut alternatives: Fetcher, Juicebox, hireEZ
Muse Glimmer 30BGem, hireEZ alternatives: Fetcher, Findem, Humanly, Manatal, TheHireHub.AI
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
LinkedIn Recruiter leads by four points.
LinkedIn Recruiter4%#5 of 10Lever0%#– of 10Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Lever leads at mid-market.
Lever8%#4 of 13LinkedIn Recruiter6%#5 of 13Enterprise
The order flips: LinkedIn Recruiter leads at enterprise.
LinkedIn Recruiter11%#3 of 13Lever0%#– of 13What the models said about Lever
No label in this category carried a quote.
What the models said about LinkedIn Recruiter
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of seven in this category shown.
“LinkedIn doesn't publish a standard price, so compare a quote rather than assuming it's the cheapest” GPT-6 Luna · budget prompt · soft negative
“without the massive price tag of enterprise solutions like LinkedIn Recruiter ($8,000–$12,000/year)” Gemini 3.5 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“you might still consider LinkedIn Recruiter Lite (approx. $9k/year) despite the cost” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · soft negative
“The gold standard for professional networking and direct outreach. Access to 1B+ profiles with advanced search, InMail messaging, and analytics.” Grok 4.20 · comparative prompt · first choice
“If you need broad corporate hiring: Start with LinkedIn Recruiter paired with Gem for automated email outreach.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“Core Channel: LinkedIn Recruiter (for direct messaging and broad talent search).” Gemini 3.5 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Gem vs LeverGem vs LinkedIn RecruiterhireEZ vs LeverhireEZ vs LinkedIn RecruiterManatal vs LeverManatal vs LinkedIn RecruiterLever vs AshbyLever vs FetcherLever vs Zoho RecruitLinkedIn Recruiter vs AshbyLinkedIn Recruiter vs FetcherLinkedIn Recruiter vs Zoho RecruitAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full Recruiting CRM 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.