SoftwareGlimpse

Ashby vs Gusto

Compare Ashby and Gusto on features, pricing, and buyer fit using the same researched criteria.

Independently recommendedLast updated Aug 18, 20264 evidence sourcesHow we compare
Compare another
Ashby logo

Ashby

7.9/10

Modern ATS + CRM/analytics — Foundations $400/mo flat for ≤100 employees (10% off annual); Plus/Enterprise seat-based custom quote.

Best for

  • Startups and growth-stage companies (≤100 employees) that want one modern ATS+analytics platform
  • TA teams comparing Ashby vs Greenhouse for AI-native hiring
  • Orgs willing to pay a high Foundations floor instead of a free ATS

Starting from $400.00/user/mo

No free plan

VS

Our verdict

Our verdict

No universal winner

No universal winner. Choose based on which criteria matter most for your team.

Ashby is better for

  • Integrations

Gusto is better for

  • Starting pricing

Choose Ashby if: Startups and growth-stage companies (≤100 employees) that want one modern ATS+analytics platform

Choose Gusto if: US small businesses running payroll (and benefits) for the first time

See detailed comparison ↓
Gusto logo

Gusto

7.1/10

US SMB payroll + benefits + light HR — Simple from $49/mo + $6/person; Plus $80 + $12; Premium $180 + $22.

Best for

  • US small businesses running payroll (and benefits) for the first time
  • Teams that want published month-to-month pricing instead of HCM quotes
  • Single-state companies that can start on Simple and upgrade for multi-state

Starting from $49.00/user/mo

No free plan

Evidence & transparency

Sources and research process behind this comparison.

Sources

4

Criteria

4

Screenshots

0

Sources consulted

TitleProductType
Ashby — Official SiteAshbyofficial-product-page
Ashby PricingAshbyofficial-pricing-page
Gusto — Official SiteGustoofficial-product-page
Gusto PricingGustoofficial-pricing-page

Methodology steps

  1. 1Collect first-party product and pricing evidence
  2. 2Map both products to the same category criteria
  3. 3Record criterion outcomes with confidence and sources
  4. 4Publish only when editorial gates allow indexing

Methodology version 1.0.0.

Independent

Affiliate relationships never change comparison outcomes. We evaluate both products on the same criteria and allow ties when evidence does not support a universal winner.

Read full methodology →

Some visit links may be affiliate links — we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Comparison outcomes are never based on commission.

Affiliate disclosure: some links may be affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Rankings and scores are never based on commission. Full disclosure

Methodology disclosure: scores and recommendations follow SoftwareGlimpse evaluation criteria (version 1.0.0). Affiliate relationships do not determine rankings.

How we recommend: product claims are tied to recorded research where available.

AI-assisted disclosure: drafts may be AI-assisted from approved facts and assessments. Humans approve publishable editorial judgments. AI does not invent live prices or claim hands-on testing.