Ashby vs Greenhouse: the high-signal ATS leave path

An all-in-one ATS with a calculator, against three demo plans

Ashby versus Greenhouse is the recruiting compare for teams leaving a process ATS, not a claim that Ashby is talent intelligence and not a claim that Greenhouse has no AI. Editorial AI-native is 7 out of 10 for Ashby and 5 out of 10 for Greenhouse. Seven is an AI-era challenger in Afterstack's labeling, not the 8-plus crop. Greenhouse is the incumbent. The quiz order is separate. This page does not pin a winner and does not read affiliates.

Ashby's pricing page on 21 October 2026 shows three All-in-One plans. Foundations is described as up to 100 employees, with a company-size selector from 1–10 through 76–100 and a payment term of monthly or yearly. In the state the page rendered, the total next to Foundations was $400 a month. The page also says a 10 percent discount for annual commitments is available, and that emerging-market pricing is available. It does not show the $400 figure changing across every headcount in the text that was captured, so $400 is the rendered total, not a promise that every company size costs $400. Plus is described as best for 101 to 1,000 employees and says pricing is based on company size, usage, and commitment, with no dollar. Enterprise is 1,000-plus employees and is also contact.

Greenhouse's pricing page the same day is titled around Core, Plus, and Pro. The Core card says bring structure to hiring and get a demo. No dollar amount rendered for Core, Plus, or Pro. The catalog price note already says annual ATS quotes. This check confirms the public page is still a demo request. Do not invent a Greenhouse seat price to compare with Ashby's $400 render.

What the Ashby grid actually itemized

The feature comparison is headed Foundations, Plus, Enterprise. Under sourcing it describes automated sequences across email and LinkedIn, shared sequences, a Chrome extension, sourcing projects, and candidate search. Those sentences are product claims on the pricing page. They are not a Greenhouse feature matrix, because Greenhouse's page did not render a comparable grid of checkmarks in the text captured here.

Candidate texting shows three allowances in the order the stripped table rendered: 1,000 outbound messages per month, 2,000 outbound messages per seat per year, and 3,000 outbound messages per seat per year. Additional messages are $90 per 1,000, and that $90 figure appears three times, once in the position of each plan column. The units are not the same across the three allowances. One is per month. Two are per seat per year. HTML column alignment can slip when a page is reduced to text, so this note reports the order the text appeared under a Foundations, Plus, Enterprise header and does not swear a shifted cell could not exist. Surveys are limited to one on the first column and custom unlimited on the later columns. That is enough to say texting is metered and surveys are not unlimited on the cheapest column. It is not enough to build a phone-bill forecast.

Greenhouse's page argues for an orchestrated hiring system and tells you to compare Core, Plus, and Pro, then asks for a demo. Without prices, the commercial comparison a buyer can finish today is: Ashby will show a Foundations total that rendered at $400 a month for the selector state on screen, plus a stated 10 percent annual discount, and Greenhouse will not show a number. Implementation scope, job-slot minimums, and agency seats were not in the Greenhouse text. Leave them unknown.

Who should switch systems of record

Pick Ashby when the leave reason is recruiter reporting and a modern all-in-one surface, and when a company under 100 employees can start from a rendered monthly total instead of a demo. Pick it knowing 7 out of 10 is not Eightfold. If the job is matching across a workforce graph, the catalog points at a different product. Ashby is still an ATS.

Stay on Greenhouse when structured process, scorecards, and the ecosystem your coordinators already know are the product. A missing public price is annoying and it is not, by itself, evidence the product is worse. It is evidence you cannot finish a spreadsheet without a sales call. Stay if your RFP is the process religion and not the analytics UI. The editorial reporting score is a catalog judgment. Greenhouse's own page did not publish a reporting benchmark this check can quote.

Skip Ashby if you need a price for 500 employees. Plus has no dollar. Skip it if you treat $400 as a universal sticker. The page is a calculator. Skip Greenhouse's Core plan as a budget line item until a quote exists. Skip both if you wanted Paradox as an independent replacement. Paradox is owned by Workday in this catalog and is not the challenger on this pair.

No Greenhouse Harvest walkthrough beyond what a buyer should know was re-opened for this essay. The migration pair Greenhouse to Ashby exists for the agent. This compare does not invent a CSV of scorecards. Ashby's pricing page, in the capture, did not document a Greenhouse importer. Plan on a pilot of Foundations math, a Greenhouse demo for the number you do not have, and a separate cutover doc before you move live reqs.

Editorial scores are a third column, not a tie-breaker you can invoice

Greenhouse is filed as founded in 2012 and as an incumbent. The editorial table gives it 6 for ease of use, 5 for AI-native, 4 for implementation speed, 8 for reporting, 7 for customization, 5 for value, and 6 for data migration. Ashby, founded in 2018 and not an incumbent, is 8, 7, 6, 9, 6, 6, and 6 on those same labels. The one-point reporting gap, 9 against 8, is not a published benchmark from either vendor. Greenhouse's page did not print a reporting SLA. Ashby's page did not print one either. The scores explain why this pair exists in the catalog. They do not explain a dollar.

Both records mark an open API, Gmail-native mail, SSO, SOC 2, a marketplace, a mobile app, and reporting. Both mark custom objects false, native calling false, Outlook-native mail false, self-host false, and sequences false. The sequences flag is the awkward one on Ashby's side, because the pricing grid describes automated sequences across email and LinkedIn. The flag stays false so the score does not move. Read the grid for the feature and the flag as a catalog residue. Greenhouse's captured page did not publish a comparable sequence matrix, so there is nothing honest to flip the Greenhouse flag against.

Greenhouse's catalog pros are structured hiring, a marketplace, and enterprise reporting. The cons are that implementation is a project, that AI is not the center, and that admin overhead is real. The implementation-speed score of 4 is that con in a number. Ashby's pros in the same file are analytics, a modern ATS interface, and being a serious Greenhouse alternative. The cons are price, the fact of a migration, and AI as assist. A 7 out of 10 AI-native score is the crop below the 8-plus line. It matches the con. It does not match a claim that Ashby is a talent-intelligence graph.

The not-for lines keep both products out of jobs they will be asked to do. Greenhouse is not filed for a two-person founding team, for a buyer who wants AI matching as the whole product, or for self-host. Ashby is not filed for a public-sector HRIS replacement, for self-host, or for a pure matching engine. Paradox is in this catalog as a Workday product, which is why it is not the challenger on the pair. If the leave story is an AI interviewer, you are on a different page.

What a finance partner can actually put in the model

One number rendered. Ashby Foundations, in the company-size state on screen, showed $400 a month, with the selector covering organizations up to 100 employees and buckets that included 1–10 and 76–100. The page says a 10 percent annual discount is available. It also says emerging-market pricing is available. Neither sentence printed a second dollar, so this note does not multiply $400 by 0.9 and does not invent an emerging-market rate. Plus, described as 101 to 1,000 employees, and Enterprise, described as 1,000-plus, say pricing depends on company size, usage, and commitment. No dollar.

Greenhouse Core, Plus, and Pro rendered as a demo. The catalog price note already says annual ATS quotes. This check agrees and adds nothing numeric. A model that needs a Greenhouse cell should have a quote in it, or the cell should say unknown. Putting Ashby's $400 into the Greenhouse column because both products are ATS software is the mistake this page is written to stop. Add-ons for Greenhouse CRM and analytics are in the catalog note as a class of quote, not as prices captured on 21 October 2026.

Texting is the only usage rate Ashby printed. Included outbound messages appeared as 1,000 a month, 2,000 per seat per year, and 3,000 per seat per year, in that order under a Foundations, Plus, Enterprise header, and $90 per 1,000 additional messages appeared in each column position. Surveys were one on the first column and custom unlimited later. Greenhouse's text did not price SMS or surveys. If your process ATS bill includes a texting vendor already, Ashby's $90 batch is a new line and Greenhouse's silence does not prove the incumbent includes texting.

A practical pass that stays inside what was opened: if the company is under 100 employees and the complaint is recruiter reporting, book a Foundations trial of the rendered math and a Greenhouse demo for the missing number, and do not move live reqs until the migrate pair has been read. If the company is over 100, both public prices are blank and the $400 render is not evidence. If the complaint is scorecard religion and the marketplace your coordinators already installed, the editorial implementation score of 4 on Greenhouse is a warning about the project you already survived, not a reason to start another one. Affiliates do not choose. The recruiting quiz does, after you say whether a free plan is mandatory. Neither vendor showed one.