We believe in transparency. Here's exactly how we evaluate applicant tracking systems to help you make informed decisions about your recruiting technology investments.
Our evaluation framework has evolved through years of hands-on experience with ATS implementations. We don't rely on vendor marketing materials or surface-level feature comparisons. Instead, we dig deep into how these systems actually perform in real recruiting environments.
Every ATS we review goes through the same rigorous evaluation process. We examine vendor documentation, request demo access when available, interview current users, and monitor user communities for feedback. When we can't directly test a feature, we clearly state our information sources.
The best features mean nothing if your team can't use them effectively. We evaluate user experience from multiple perspectives:
We pay special attention to the candidate experience, as a cumbersome application process can cost you top talent before you even see their resume.
Cost transparency shouldn't be a luxury. We investigate pricing models thoroughly:
We call out vendors who hide pricing behind "contact sales" walls and highlight those offering transparent, predictable pricing models.
We assess whether the ATS handles recruiting fundamentals well:
Rather than counting features, we evaluate how well each function serves its purpose in real recruiting workflows.
No ATS is an island. We examine how well systems play with others:
We note whether integrations require technical expertise or additional fees, and highlight systems with robust, well-documented APIs.
When things go wrong (and they will), support quality matters:
We look for patterns in user feedback about support experiences and test response times when possible.
Protecting candidate data isn't optional. We verify:
We highlight any security concerns and note which vendors go above and beyond in protecting sensitive information.
We use a 5-point scale for overall ratings, with half-point increments for nuanced scoring:
| Score | Rating | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| 4.5 - 5.0 | Excellent | Outstanding platform with minimal weaknesses. Highly recommended for most organizations. |
| 3.5 - 4.4 | Good | Solid choice with more strengths than weaknesses. Worth considering for your shortlist. |
| 2.5 - 3.4 | Average | Acceptable option with notable limitations. May work for specific use cases. |
| 1.5 - 2.4 | Below Average | Significant issues present. Consider alternatives unless specific features are critical. |
| 1.0 - 1.4 | Poor | Major problems identified. Not recommended except in very specific circumstances. |
We gather information from multiple sources to build comprehensive reviews:
The ATS market moves quickly. New features launch, pricing changes, and companies merge or shut down. Here's how we maintain review accuracy:
It's equally important to be clear about what our reviews don't include:
We believe in continuous improvement and welcome feedback on our evaluation framework. If you have questions about how we review ATS platforms or suggestions for improving our methodology, please contact us.
For vendors who believe we've misrepresented their platform, we're always willing to review new information and update our assessments when warranted. We want our reviews to be fair, accurate, and helpful to the HR community.
