That sentence is the entire page, and if it answers your question you can stop reading. But it is worth explaining what "in front of it" means, because the category is vague about where one product ends and the next begins.
What an ATS is for
Workable and Greenhouse are applicant tracking systems. Their job is to be the system of record for hiring: job postings out, applications in, candidates tracked through stages, feedback collected, offers made, compliance records kept. Both are mature and both are good at it.
Workable publishes its prices:
| Plan | Monthly | Annual | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | $299/mo | $3,588/yr | Recruiting suite + HR features |
| Premier | $599/mo | $7,188/yr | Adds texting, video interviews, assessments, referrals |
| Enterprise | $719/mo | $8,628/yr | — |
Add-ons on Standard: texting $89/mo, video interviews $109/mo, assessments $59/mo. AI features are credit-metered — 3,000 credits included to start, then 5,000 for $600 or 10,000 for $1,000, expiring after a year. There is a 15-day trial, no card required. (source)
Greenhouse does not publish prices. Its tiers are Core, Plus and Pro, and it states that pricing is "customized based on your company's hiring needs" — influenced by plan, hiring volume, organisational complexity and required features. Pricing comes via a demo or a conversation with sales. (source)
We are not going to estimate what Greenhouse costs. Figures circulate; none we could find trace back to Greenhouse itself. Quote-only is a real and useful fact on its own — it tells you the product is sold through a sales process rather than a signup form.
What an ATS deliberately does not do
It does not judge the candidates.
That is not a shortcoming; it is the design. An ATS is a record system, and record systems are not supposed to have opinions. Workflow rules, keyword filters and scorecards help you organise the judging, but the judging itself is human, and it happens under time pressure.
So the pile arrives. Three hundred applications for one role. Someone reads as many as they can, at speed, and forms a view. The rest are skimmed or not read at all. The ATS records the outcome faithfully and knows nothing about how it was reached.
Two consequences follow, and both are the ones buyers actually feel:
- Good candidates are missed. Not through bias or negligence — through arithmetic. Nobody reads applicant 240 with the attention they gave applicant 4.
- The decision cannot be reconstructed. Your ATS can tell you that someone was rejected at screening. It cannot tell you what they were asked, what they said, or how they compared against a consistent standard — because none of that was ever captured.
What NiceHire adds
NiceHire runs the first round and hands back a ranked shortlist with the reasoning attached.
- Resume vetting. Each resume is scored against the role, with a structured summary and a configurable passing threshold.
- AI first-round interview. Every applicant for a role is asked from the same question set, in the same order, with the interviewer free to ask follow-ups and rephrase on request. The interview produces a transcript and a structured evaluation — technical, communication and cultural-fit scores each out of 100, plus recorded strengths and gaps.
- A ranked shortlist. Candidates ordered with a score and the evidence behind it.
What happens below the threshold is a setting, and the default matters. Each stage runs in automatic or manual progression mode. In manual mode every candidate waits for a human. In automatic mode, candidates above the threshold advance, and candidates below it are routed to pending review for a person to decide by default — auto-reject is off unless you switch it on per stage. The transcript and the scores are written either way. We would rather publish the default than let it surprise you.
What it costs. A flat monthly platform fee, with AI-interview minutes included and usage metered above the allowance:
| Plan | Price | AI-interview minutes | Video overage | Voice overage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | $99/mo | 60 included | $0.59/min | $0.295/min |
| Business | $299/mo | 200 included | $0.53/min | $0.265/min |
| Enterprise | $999/mo | 600 included | $0.41/min | $0.205/min |
Voice interviews are billed at half the video rate at every tier. There is no per-user or per-seat component on any plan — adding recruiters, hiring managers or observers does not change the platform fee. Current plans are always on the pricing page.
A fair reading of that against Workable. NiceHire's $99 entry is well below Workable's $299 Standard, but they are not the same purchase — Workable is a full ATS and HR suite, and NiceHire is one layer of the hiring process. If you need both, you are paying for both, and the honest total for a team adopting NiceHire alongside Workable Standard is $398/month before any AI minutes beyond the included 60. We would rather you see that number here than discover it in month two.
Where the comparison is genuinely favourable: Workable prices video interviews as a $109/mo add-on and meters AI credits at 5,000 for $600 with a one-year expiry. Stack Standard + video + a credit pack and the AI-screening portion of a Workable bill is not obviously cheaper than a NiceHire tier. Run it on your own volume rather than on either vendor's framing.
Where this leaves your ATS
Exactly where it is. Your requisitions, your candidate records, your offer workflow, your compliance retention — all of that stays in Workable or Greenhouse. Nothing about adopting a first-round layer requires ripping out a system of record, and you should be sceptical of anyone suggesting it does.
One thing we will not claim: automated integrations. NiceHire does not have a verified integration with Workable, Greenhouse, Lever, Workday or BambooHR, and we are not going to imply one exists. There is also no public API today. If your evaluation depends on a native two-way sync, ask us directly and we will give you a straight answer rather than a roadmap.
That is an honest limitation and it belongs on this page.
Where Workable or Greenhouse is the better buy
Straightforwardly:
- You want to evaluate before you pay. Workable gives you 15 days with no card. NiceHire's employer plans have no free trial — the 14-day trial on our site is for individual job-seeker plans. If a hands-on trial is how you buy software, that is a point against us.
- You do not have an ATS. Buy one first. A first-round layer on top of an unorganised process solves the second problem before the first. Workable publishes its price and has a 15-day trial; that is an easy evaluation to run yourself.
- You need one system for hiring and HR. Workable's Standard plan bundles HR features alongside recruiting. NiceHire does none of that.
- You need deep structured interview kits, scorecards and DEI reporting across a large hiring organisation. Greenhouse's depth here is genuine and long-established.
- Your volume per role is low. If twelve people apply and you read all twelve, an AI first round is not solving anything. Don't buy it.
- Your procurement requires an established vendor with enterprise references. Both qualify. We are a smaller and younger company, and that is a legitimate factor in a serious evaluation.
Where NiceHire is the better buy
- Applications per role have outgrown the hours available to read them, and hiring more recruiters is not the answer you want.
- You need to be able to explain a screening decision months later. The same question set across candidates, a stored transcript, and a structured score behind each decision — with the limits set out below.
- You want your recruiters interviewing rather than triaging. The first round runs without them.
- You want to know the price before booking a call.
A note on compliance, stated carefully
Regulatory attention on AI in hiring is rising, and vendors in this category are not always careful about what they promise. So, precisely:
NiceHire cannot make you compliant with any bias-audit law, and no vendor can. Where an independent bias audit is required — New York City Local Law 144 is the clearest example — the audit must be performed by an independent auditor. A vendor's own assertion is not a substitute and never has been.
What a structured first round leaves behind is a record, and we would rather describe ours accurately than call it something grander. A completed screening stores the interview transcript against the application, along with the scores, the recommendation, and the recorded strengths and gaps. Every applicant to a role is asked from the same question set, in the same order.
Three limits on that record, because they matter to anyone actually planning to rely on it. The transcript is whatever the interview provider returns, so a session that ends early can be stored without one. Re-running a screening clears the previous attempt's transcript rather than keeping both. And the interview template is stored as a live reference rather than a snapshot, so editing a template changes what the record says about interviews that already happened.
Those are real gaps and they are on our list. We are not going to describe this as an audit trail until they are closed.
What it is good for today is the ordinary version of the question: when someone asks why a candidate did not progress, there is something to look at other than a recollection.
Summary
| Workable | Greenhouse | NiceHire | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | ATS + HR suite | ATS | AI first round |
| Published price | $299 / $599 / $719 per mo | Quote-only (Core/Plus/Pro) | $99 / $299 / $999 per mo |
| Pricing basis | Flat monthly + add-ons + AI credits | Custom | Flat monthly + metered AI minutes |
| Per-seat cost | No | Custom | No |
| Judges candidates | No — human, with tooling | No — human, with tooling | Yes — scores and ranks against a threshold |
| Output | Tracked pipeline | Tracked pipeline | Ranked shortlist + transcript + score per candidate |
| Free trial | 15 days, no card | Demo | None on employer plans |
| Replaces your ATS | — | — | No — it runs alongside one |
Most teams evaluating us already own an ATS. The question is not which to keep — it is whether your first round is a bottleneck you can defend.