SoftwareGlimpse

Greenhouse vs Workable

Greenhouse fits structured hiring kits/scorecards; Workable fits published ats floors + 15-day trial.

Independently recommendedLast updated Aug 17, 20264 evidence sources2 screenshotsHow we compare
Compare another
Greenhouse logo

Greenhouse

8/10

Structured-hiring ATS (Core / Plus / Pro) — custom quote by plan, hiring volume, and org complexity; no published seat dollars.

Best for

  • • Structured hiring kits/scorecards
  • • Enterprise/mid TA teams

No free plan

VS

Our verdict

Our verdict

No universal winner

Choose Greenhouse for structured hiring (kits, scorecards, governance) at mid-market/enterprise. Choose Workable for a dedicated ATS with published SMB floors and a trial.

Greenhouse is better for

  • ✓ Hiring workflow
  • ✓ Integrations

Workable is better for

  • ✓ Core HRIS depth
  • ✓ Payroll processing
  • ✓ Training depth
  • ✓ Time tracking depth

Tie

  • • Scheduling depth

Choose Greenhouse if: Structured hiring kits/scorecards

Choose Workable if: Published ATS floors + 15-day trial

See detailed comparison ↓
Workable logo

Workable

7.2/10

Recruiting + light HR ATS with published floors — Standard $299/mo (1–20 employees, annual); Premier $599; Enterprise $719.

Best for

  • • Published ATS floors + 15-day trial
  • • SMB recruiting with light HR

Starting from $299.00/user/mo

No free plan

Quick verdict

Start here — then dig into the evidence below.

Choose Greenhouse if…

  • Structured hiring kits/scorecards
  • Enterprise/mid TA teams
  • You prioritize hiring workflow
  • You prioritize integrations

Choose Workable if…

  • Published ATS floors + 15-day trial
  • SMB recruiting with light HR
  • You prioritize core hris depth
  • You prioritize payroll processing

Overall recommendation

Choose Greenhouse for structured hiring (kits, scorecards, governance) at mid-market/enterprise. Choose Workable for a dedicated ATS with published SMB floors and a trial.

Key trade-off

Greenhouse trades toward hiring workflow; Workable trades toward core hris depth.

Winner by category

Only dimensions with researched evidence for this pair.

DimensionWinnerWhy
Hiring workflowGreenhouse winsGreenhouse is the stronger fit for hiring workflow (10/10 vs 8/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Core HRIS depthWorkable winsWorkable is the stronger fit for core HRIS depth (3/10 vs 5/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Payroll processingWorkable winsWorkable is the stronger fit for payroll processing (1/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Scheduling depthTieGreenhouse and Workable are close on workforce scheduling (2/10 vs 2/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Training depthWorkable winsWorkable is the stronger fit for training and SOPs (2/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Time tracking depthWorkable winsWorkable is the stronger fit for time tracking (2/10 vs 4/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
IntegrationsGreenhouse winsGreenhouse is the stronger fit for integrations (9/10 vs 7/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Mobile / frontlineWorkable winsWorkable is the stronger fit for mobile and frontline use (5/10 vs 6/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.

Side-by-side feature matrix

Normalized availability from product research — empty rows are not shown.

Hiring

FeatureGreenhouseWorkable
Applicant trackingStrongStrong
Career site & job boardsStrongStrong
Interview schedulingStrongStrong

Workforce

FeatureGreenhouseWorkable
Workforce schedulingLimitedLimited
Frontline communicationsLimitedLimited
Time & attendanceLimitedModerate
GPS / geofence clock-inLimitedLimited

People & payroll

FeatureGreenhouseWorkable
Core HRISModerateModerate
Payroll processingLimitedModerate
Benefits administrationLimitedLimited

Training

FeatureGreenhouseWorkable
SOP / knowledge baseLimitedLimited
Employee training pathsLimitedModerate
LMS / course commerceLimitedLimited

Platform

FeatureGreenhouseWorkable
HRIS integrationsStrongStrong
Analytics & reportingStrongStrong
AI assistanceStrongModerate

Pricing comparison

Pricing evidence last checked Sep 9, 2026.

Greenhouse logo

Greenhouse

No free planNo free trial evidenced
  • CoreCustom
  • PlusCustom
  • ProCustom
Workable logo

Workable

From $299.00/user/mo

No free planFree trial available
  • Standard$299.00/mo
  • Premier$599.00/mo
  • Enterprise$719.00/mo

Seat-count estimates

Labeled estimates from verified starting per-seat pricing — not invoices.

SeatsGreenhouseWorkable
5—~$1,495.00/mo (5 × starting seat)
10—~$2,990.00/mo (10 × starting seat)
25—~$7,475.00/mo (25 × starting seat)
50—~$14,950.00/mo (50 × starting seat)

Estimate from verified starting per-seat pricing — actual total depends on plan, annual discounts, and add-ons.

Workable $299 is the 1–20 employee band; larger companies pay more. Greenhouse dollars are unpublished. Affiliate economics excluded.

Open cost calculator →

Best for

Scenario picks from researched strengths — not a universal ranking.

  • → Greenhouse

    Structured hiring kits/scorecards

    Pick Greenhouse for Structured hiring kits/scorecards.

  • → Greenhouse

    Enterprise/mid TA teams

    Pick Greenhouse for Enterprise/mid TA teams.

  • → Workable

    Published ATS floors + 15-day trial

    Pick Workable for Published ATS floors + 15-day trial.

  • → Workable

    SMB recruiting with light HR

    Pick Workable for SMB recruiting with light HR.

  • → Greenhouse

    Best for hiring workflow

    Greenhouse is the stronger fit for hiring workflow (10/10 vs 8/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.

  • → Greenhouse

    Best for integrations

    Greenhouse is the stronger fit for integrations (9/10 vs 7/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.

The differences that actually matter

Pair-specific analysis for Greenhouse vs Workable — not generic category copy.

  • Starting pricing

    Depends

    Starting pricing: Greenhouse — Greenhouse is custom quote (Core/Plus/Pro, no published seat $). Workable Standard is $299/mo annual for 1–20 employees.. Workable — Greenhouse is custom quote (Core/Plus/Pro, no published seat $). Workable Standard is $299/mo annual for 1–20 employees.. Feature evidence also diverges on Time & attendance (Greenhouse: Limited; Workable: Moderate); Payroll processing (Greenhouse: Limited; Workable: Moderate); Employee training paths (Greenhouse: Limited; Workable: Moderate).

  • Hiring workflow

    Greenhouse ahead

    On hiring workflow, Greenhouse is ahead. Greenhouse: Greenhouse is the stronger fit for hiring workflow (10/10 vs 8/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.. Workable: Trails Greenhouse on this criterion.

  • Core HRIS depth

    Workable ahead

    On core hris depth, Workable is ahead. Greenhouse: Trails Workable on this criterion. Workable: Workable is the stronger fit for core HRIS depth (3/10 vs 5/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI..

  • Payroll processing

    Workable ahead

    On payroll processing, Workable is ahead. Greenhouse: Trails Workable on this criterion. Workable: Workable is the stronger fit for payroll processing (1/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI..

  • Scheduling depth

    Tie

    Greenhouse and Workable are close on scheduling depth. Greenhouse and Workable are close on workforce scheduling (2/10 vs 2/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.

  • Training depth

    Workable ahead

    On training depth, Workable is ahead. Greenhouse: Trails Workable on this criterion. Workable: Workable is the stronger fit for training and SOPs (2/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI..

Pros and cons

Product-specific for this pair — derived from researched outcomes and editorial notes.

Greenhouse logo

Greenhouse

Pros

  • Stronger on hiring workflow
  • Stronger on integrations

Cons

  • Trails on core hris depth
  • Trails on payroll processing
  • Trails on training depth
Workable logo

Workable

Pros

  • Stronger on core hris depth
  • Stronger on payroll processing
  • Stronger on training depth
  • Stronger on time tracking depth

Cons

  • Trails on hiring workflow
  • Trails on integrations

Who should not choose each product

Decision quality improves when we say who should walk away.

Don't choose Greenhouse if…

  • You need Workable's stronger core hris depth more than Greenhouse's strengths
  • You need Workable's stronger payroll processing more than Greenhouse's strengths
  • You need Workable's stronger training depth more than Greenhouse's strengths
  • Your primary fit looks closer to: Published ATS floors + 15-day trial

Don't choose Workable if…

  • You need Greenhouse's stronger hiring workflow more than Workable's strengths
  • You need Greenhouse's stronger integrations more than Workable's strengths
  • Your primary fit looks closer to: Structured hiring kits/scorecards
  • Your primary fit looks closer to: Enterprise/mid TA teams

Alternatives worth considering

When neither product is the right fit.

  • Mid-market ATS with free Bootstrap, paid Startup/Growth/Business pools, career site, and interview workflows — Growth from $273/mo annual.

  • SMB/mid-market core HRIS with Core/Pro/Elite PEPM tiers — Core from $10/employee/mo above 25 employees, or $250/mo flat floor for smaller teams.

  • ATS + recruiting CRM under Employ — custom quote (Core AI-powered hiring platform plus Insights/VONQ/Onboarding add-ons); demo-led, no published seat $.

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

Final verdict

Scenario-level close — not a repeat of the intro.

Greenhouse wins when…

Structured hiring kits/scorecards

Workable wins when…

Published ATS floors + 15-day trial

  • Structured hiring kits/scorecardsGreenhouse
  • Enterprise/mid TA teamsGreenhouse
  • Published ATS floors + 15-day trialWorkable
  • SMB recruiting with light HRWorkable

Which one should you choose?

Choose Greenhouse if:

  • Structured hiring kits/scorecards
  • Enterprise/mid TA teams

Choose Workable if:

  • Published ATS floors + 15-day trial
  • SMB recruiting with light HR

Product screenshots

Real product UI from our media library — no placeholders.

Greenhouse

  • Greenhouse Software, Inc. product overview from official vendor video

Workable

  • Workable Software Ltd product overview from official vendor video

FAQ

Is Greenhouse better than Workable?
Choose Greenhouse for structured hiring (kits, scorecards, governance) at mid-market/enterprise. Choose Workable for a dedicated ATS with published SMB floors and a trial.
Which HR software fits which team?
Greenhouse: Structured hiring kits/scorecards Workable: Published ATS floors + 15-day trial
Which is stronger for hiring workflow?
Greenhouse is the stronger fit for hiring workflow (10/10 vs 8/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Which is stronger for core hris depth?
Workable is the stronger fit for core HRIS depth (3/10 vs 5/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Which is stronger for payroll processing?
Workable is the stronger fit for payroll processing (1/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Which is stronger for scheduling depth?
Greenhouse and Workable are close on workforce scheduling (2/10 vs 2/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Which is stronger for time tracking depth?
Workable is the stronger fit for time tracking (2/10 vs 4/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Which is stronger for training depth?
Workable is the stronger fit for training and SOPs (2/10 vs 3/10). Scores reflect job-cluster fit from vendor documentation, not a lab test of the UI.
Does Greenhouse or Workable have a free plan?
Greenhouse: No free plan. Workable: No free plan.
How does Greenhouse vs Workable pricing compare?
Workable starts from $299.00/user/mo. Confirm live vendor pricing before purchasing.
How did SoftwareGlimpse compare these products?
We map both products to the same category criteria, then evaluate trade-offs using verified product, pricing and feature evidence. Affiliate relationships never change outcomes.

Still deciding between Greenhouse and Workable?

Use Best HR software for a shortlist matched to your priorities, or build another side-by-side comparison.

  • Independent criterion outcomes
  • No invented scores or prices
  • Affiliate links never change winners

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.

Part of Software comparisons · HR Software hub

Try a decision tool

Interactive helpers use recommendation criteria — affiliate status never changes outcomes.