Here's something worth naming upfront: most people searching this comparison have already demoed one or both platforms. They've heard "best-in-class structured hiring" and "200+ job board integrations" so many times those phrases have lost meaning. What they're actually trying to reconcile is the pricing reality — Greenhouse's custom-quote process on one side, Workable's per-employee formula on the other — and figure out which model will hurt less at renewal in year two or three.
That's a fair concern. But pricing is only part of the answer. The bigger question is whether either platform actually fits your hiring motion, your team size, and your compliance environment. The decision matrix at the end of this article covers exactly that. First, let's examine what each platform actually delivers.
Who actually buys Greenhouse vs who actually buys Workable
Greenhouse and Workable are not competing for the same buyer at the same inflection point. Understanding which profile you match is the fastest way to narrow this comparison down.
The Greenhouse buyer is typically a company between 150 and 2,000 employees that has hit a hiring quality problem, not a hiring speed problem. They've had a bad hire that cost them dearly. They have multiple hiring managers using inconsistent evaluation practices. Their TA function is professionalizing — they want scorecards, structured interview kits, auditable decisions, DEI reporting that satisfies board commitments, and sourcing attribution data that justifies the sourcing budget. They're building a repeatable, measurable recruiting machine. They can absorb a 4–8 week implementation because the investment pays dividends at scale.
The Workable buyer is moving faster, with fewer resources. They're a 30-to-300-person company with one recruiter or an HR generalist wearing multiple hats. They need a system live before the end of the week. They care about reach — posting to Indeed, LinkedIn, and dozens of other boards from one interface — and collaborative pipeline visibility that non-technical hiring managers will actually use. They don't need enterprise analytics. They need to fill positions without becoming an ATS administrator.
The calibrated question before going further: Are you solving a quality problem or a speed problem? Greenhouse is the answer to a quality problem. Workable is the answer to a speed and reach problem.
Pricing — what you'll actually pay
Pricing is where most comparison articles go vague. We'll be specific about what is publicly known and what customers consistently report.
Greenhouse pricing
Greenhouse does not publish its pricing. You negotiate a contract. What customers report across community forums, G2 reviews, and procurement discussions:
- Small-mid market (50–200 employees): $6,000–$15,000/year base. Often includes 1 core seat, additional seats at $100–$200/user/year.
- Mid-market (200–500 employees): $15,000–$30,000/year. Analytics add-ons, advanced CRM features, and additional integrations typically cost extra.
- Enterprise (500–2,000+ employees): $30,000–$100,000+/year. Custom contracts with multi-year commitments commonly offered in exchange for discounts.
- Annual renewal increases: 8–15% per year, reported consistently across customer reviews. A company that signs at $18,000/year in year one may face $22,000+ by year three.
Workable pricing
Workable's pricing is more transparent and is publicly documented, though the full cost model requires calculation. As of 2026:
- Starter: $189/month (billed annually) — 2 active jobs, core ATS features, limited automation.
- Standard: $313/month (billed annually) — plan-based active job limits, reporting, interview scheduling, basic AI features.
- Premier: $628/month (billed annually) — full feature access including advanced AI, custom reports, priority support.
- Enterprise: Custom pricing per employee per month — typically $1.50–$4.50 per employee per month depending on negotiated contract and headcount band.
The hidden complexity in Workable's model: the Starter and Standard plans are priced per job, while Enterprise shifts to per-employee. Companies that grow into Enterprise pricing see a non-linear cost jump as headcount scales. A 300-person company at $3/employee/month pays $10,800/year — and that number grows automatically with every hire regardless of whether they are recruiting actively.
| Company Size | Greenhouse (est.) | Workable (est.) | Treegarden (published) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 25–50 employees | $6,000–$10,000/yr | $2,300–$3,800/yr (Standard/Premier) | $3,588/yr (Startup, all features) |
| 100–200 employees | $12,000–$20,000/yr | $3,800–$7,500/yr (Standard–Enterprise) | $5,988/yr (Growth, all features) |
| 300–500 employees | $20,000–$35,000/yr | $10,800–$18,000/yr (Enterprise per-emp) | $10,788/yr (Scale, all features) |
| 1,000+ employees | $40,000–$100,000+/yr | $36,000–$54,000/yr (at $3–$4.50/emp) | Custom (contact sales) |
Note: Greenhouse and Workable Enterprise figures are estimates based on publicly reported customer data and community forums. Actual contracts vary by negotiation, region, and contract duration. Always request multi-year pricing from both vendors.
Greenhouse — structured hiring done seriously
Greenhouse has been the benchmark for structured hiring since around 2012, and it has earned that reputation through consistent product investment in the areas that matter most for complex hiring operations.
Where Greenhouse genuinely excels
Structured interview kits. Greenhouse's interview kit builder is the most mature in the mid-market. You define competency-based questions per role and per stage, assign interviewers with specific focus areas, and collect standardized scorecard ratings that feed into aggregate reporting. For companies with five or more interviewers per candidate, this prevents the "everyone had a different conversation" problem that reliably corrupts hiring quality. Scorecards are version-controlled so you can compare evaluation quality over time, not just hiring outcomes.
Sourcing attribution by hire, not just by applicant. Greenhouse tracks where every hire originated with unusual precision. The distinction that matters is hire-level attribution, not application-level — most ATS platforms show which boards send the most applicants, but Greenhouse shows which boards send the most hires. For a company spending $60,000+ annually on job board sponsorship, this data typically pays for the platform cost several times over by redirecting budget from high-volume, low-quality sources to lower-volume, higher-quality sources.
Integration ecosystem depth. Greenhouse has invested in a native integration marketplace with 500+ connections covering HRIS platforms (Workday, BambooHR, Rippling, ADP), background check providers (Checkr, Sterling), assessment tools (Codility, HackerRank, Pymetrics), video interviewing (Zoom, HireVue), and calendaring. For a company with an existing HR tech stack, Greenhouse is the most likely to fit without custom API work. Integration depth is a real differentiator for companies whose recruiting workflow touches multiple upstream and downstream systems.
DEI reporting and compliance tooling. Greenhouse has invested meaningfully in EEOC and diversity reporting — voluntary candidate demographic collection, funnel-stage analysis broken down by demographic group, and structured reporting outputs that satisfy audit requirements. For US companies with investor, board, or federal contractor diversity commitments, Greenhouse's DEI tooling is the most purpose-built in the mid-market ATS category.
Approval workflows. Multi-stage job requisition approvals, offer approvals routed through finance and HR, and department-level permissions are all configurable in Greenhouse. For organizations with formal headcount approval processes — common in publicly traded companies, PE-backed companies, and regulated industries — this workflow tooling reduces approval cycle time significantly versus managing approvals in email.
Where Greenhouse creates friction
Pricing opacity and renewal risk. The fundamental problem with Greenhouse's pricing model is that you negotiate a contract without a reference point. You cannot know whether your renewal price is fair because there is no published benchmark. Renewal increases of 8–15% annually are reported consistently. The net effect: a company that signs a $15,000 contract in 2026 may face a $19,000–$21,000 renewal by 2028, at which point switching costs make the decision to stay painful but the cost of switching also painful.
Implementation complexity. Greenhouse's 4–8 week implementation timeline is not vendor marketing — it reflects genuine configuration complexity. Building job templates, scorecard competency libraries, approval workflows, offer letter templates, and HRIS integration mappings is a real project. Companies that rush through setup end up with a half-configured system they underuse. The implementation investment pays off — but it requires a project manager, HR leadership time, and often a Greenhouse implementation partner engagement that adds $2,000–$8,000 to first-year costs.
Analytics tier gating. The full power of Greenhouse's reporting — the features that differentiate it most clearly from Workable — is locked behind higher-tier plans. Companies on base contracts discover that sourcing quality analysis, structured feedback aggregation, and advanced stage conversion metrics require an upgrade conversation. This gating is a genuine source of buyer frustration and is worth specifically negotiating at contract time.
Candidate-facing experience. Greenhouse's recruiter-facing tooling is excellent. Its candidate-facing career pages and application flows have historically been less competitive — mobile application completion rates have been a persistent complaint in customer reviews. Greenhouse has invested in improving this, but companies placing high emphasis on candidate experience should test the apply flow directly before committing.
Workable — speed and reach with a growing feature set
Workable built its reputation on a single, valuable promise: get companies live fast with broad job board reach. That remains its core advantage. The feature set has expanded considerably, but the identity is still "fast to deploy, easy to use, best-in-class multiposting."
Where Workable genuinely excels
Time to live — measured in hours, not weeks. Workable can realistically have a company posting jobs and receiving applications within 24 hours of sign-up. The UI is clean and intuitive enough that a recruiter with no prior ATS experience can learn the core workflow in a day. For companies that have been managing hiring in spreadsheets or shared email inboxes and need to stop that immediately, Workable's onboarding is genuinely the fastest path to functionality in the ATS category.
Multi-board posting at scale. Workable's one-click publishing to 200+ job boards — including free boards, sponsored placement management for Indeed and LinkedIn, and international boards — is a real differentiator. The platform also surfaces board-level performance data, allowing sourcers to optimize their spend mix over time. For companies where inbound applicant volume is the primary constraint, this multiposting capability is the most valuable feature Workable offers.
AI-assisted sourcing and screening. Workable has invested in AI features meaningfully: AI-generated job descriptions calibrated to the role, AI candidate matching that surfaces relevant candidates from Workable's passive talent database (which claims 400 million+ profiles), and auto-screening questions generated from job requirements. For lean recruiting teams without dedicated sourcers, these tools reduce manual effort on the top-of-funnel significantly.
Collaborative hiring — accessible to non-recruiters. Workable's interface is simple enough that hiring managers and non-HR interviewers actually use it rather than reverting to email. The ability to add unlimited team members to the hiring process (at most plan levels) without per-seat cost is a practical advantage for companies with distributed hiring across multiple departments.
Free trial availability. Workable offers a 15-day free trial without requiring a credit card or a sales conversation. This allows genuine evaluation before commitment — a significant advantage over Greenhouse's demo-only go-to-market. For buyers who want to test before they invest, this is a meaningful differentiator.
Where Workable creates friction
Headcount-based pricing creates perverse incentives. Workable's Enterprise pricing charges per employee, not per recruiter or per active job. This means a company's ATS bill grows automatically with every hire — regardless of whether they are actively recruiting. A company that grew from 100 to 300 employees last year and is now in a hiring freeze is still paying 3x what they paid before. There is no mechanism to reduce cost during low-hiring periods. This model is opaque to many buyers at signing and becomes a source of frustration at renewal.
Structured interviewing limitations. Workable has added structured interview features — evaluation scorecards, interview kits, custom ratings — but they are meaningfully less mature than Greenhouse's. The scorecard system lacks version control, competency-level analytics, and the ability to track interviewer calibration over time. For companies building a data-driven structured hiring process, Workable's current tooling is adequate for small teams but insufficient for professional TA operations.
Analytical depth ceiling. Workable's reporting is solid for standard metrics — time-to-fill, pipeline summary, source tracking. It becomes insufficient when recruiting leadership needs to answer harder questions: which source generates hires with the highest 90-day retention? Which interviewer's scorecard ratings correlate most strongly with subsequent performance ratings? Which stage in the pipeline has the worst drop-off for engineering candidates specifically? These are answerable questions in Greenhouse. They are not answerable in Workable's current analytics suite.
GDPR tooling gaps. Workable offers GDPR consent capture and basic data deletion. European companies operating in Germany, France, the Netherlands, or countries with stringent DPA enforcement frequently find Workable's automated data retention and deletion workflows insufficient for their legal obligations. This is particularly relevant for companies relying on the platform as their system of record for candidate data subject to Article 17 deletion requests.
Feature-by-feature comparison
| Feature / Capability | Greenhouse | Workable | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pricing transparency | None — fully negotiated | Partial — published tiers, Enterprise custom | Workable |
| Time to implement | 4–8 weeks (structured onboarding) | Hours to 1 day | Workable |
| Structured interview kits | Best-in-class — version-controlled scorecards, competency analytics | Available but limited — no version control or calibration analytics | Greenhouse |
| Job board multiposting | Strong — major boards covered | Excellent — 200+ boards, sponsored management | Workable |
| Sourcing analytics (by hire) | Deep — attribution by hire, stage, department | Standard — attribution by applicant | Greenhouse |
| HRIS / tech stack integrations | 500+ native integrations | 100+ integrations | Greenhouse |
| DEI / EEOC reporting | Comprehensive — demographic funnels, EEOC exports | Basic — demographic capture only | Greenhouse |
| GDPR / data privacy tooling | Strong — configurable retention, deletion workflows, per-country policies | Basic — consent capture, manual deletion | Greenhouse |
| AI candidate matching | Available via integrations (Pymetrics, etc.) | Native — 400M+ profile database | Workable |
| Offer management and approvals | Sophisticated — multi-step approval chains, offer letter templates, e-sign | Basic — offer letters, simple approval routing | Greenhouse |
| Free trial available | No — demo required | Yes — 15-day no-credit-card trial | Workable |
| Customer support model | Dedicated CSM on higher tiers; email/chat on base | Chat and email support; phone on Premier+ | Greenhouse (at scale) |
| Renewal price predictability | Low — 8–15% increases reported annually | Medium — grows with headcount automatically | Neither |
ATS scorecard UX: a closer look at what actually differs
The scorecard is the core workflow artifact in structured hiring — the mechanism by which multiple interviewers' assessments are collected, compared, and used to make consistent hiring decisions. This is where Greenhouse and Workable differ most practically.
Greenhouse scorecards allow you to define specific competencies at the job level (e.g., "Systems Thinking," "Communication Under Pressure"), assign each competency to specific interviewers, collect numerical ratings and written justifications per competency, and then view an aggregate scorecard across all interviewers before the debrief. The key features that set Greenhouse apart: competency ratings from different interviewers are displayed side by side, enabling comparison before calibration conversations; the platform tracks interviewer consistency over time, flagging interviewers whose ratings diverge significantly from the eventual hire decision; and scorecard templates are versioned so you can iterate on your evaluation framework without losing historical data.
Workable scorecards allow interviewers to rate candidates on defined criteria and leave notes. The experience is functional and sufficient for small-team hiring. What Workable lacks: interviewer-level calibration analytics, version-controlled scorecard templates, and the cross-interviewer comparison view that makes pre-debrief preparation in Greenhouse so valuable. For a company with two interviewers per role and a single recruiter, this difference is mostly academic. For a company with five to eight interviewers per senior hire across multiple departments, Greenhouse's structured approach to feedback collection and display is genuinely different.
Integration ecosystems compared
Both platforms integrate with the core tools recruiting teams rely on, but the depth and reliability of those integrations differ significantly.
Greenhouse integrations worth knowing: Workday (bi-directional HRIS sync), BambooHR, Rippling, ADP Workforce Now, Okta (SSO), Slack (interview notifications, hiring team updates), Google Workspace and Microsoft 365 (calendar sync for interview scheduling), Checkr and Sterling (background checks), Codility and HackerRank (technical assessments), DocuSign (e-signatures on offers), Tableau (analytics export), and Lever CRM (if you're using both ATS and CRM separately). The Greenhouse Open API is well-documented and used by enterprise customers to build custom integrations.
Workable integrations worth knowing: BambooHR, HiBob, Personio (HRIS), Slack, Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoom (video interviews), Checkr (background checks), LinkedIn (candidate sourcing and job posting), Indeed (sponsored posting), Zapier (connecting to 5,000+ apps), and major HRIS platforms via Workable's API. The Zapier integration is particularly valuable for Workable customers — it enables workflow automation without custom development, connecting Workable to payroll, onboarding, and document systems that don't have native Workable connectors.
For companies with a modern, cloud-native HR tech stack, both platforms integrate with most core tools. The Greenhouse advantage is most pronounced for companies using Workday or ADP Workforce Now as their HRIS — those integrations are deeper and more reliable in Greenhouse than in Workable. The Workable advantage is most pronounced for companies that rely on Zapier to fill integration gaps without developer involvement.
Real switching costs — what migration actually involves
One of the most underestimated inputs in the Greenhouse vs Workable decision is the cost of eventually switching away from whichever platform you choose. ATS platforms are sticky — not because they're good, but because accumulated data, configured workflows, and recruiter habits are genuinely costly to transfer.
Data migration scope. Migrating from either platform requires exporting: all historical candidate records (including full application history and stage-by-stage movement), interview notes and scorecard data, offer history, sourcing data, and job-level analytics. Greenhouse exports are well-structured JSON files that third-party migration tools can process reasonably well. Workable exports are primarily CSV-based and require significant cleanup and reformatting before import into a new system. Either migration takes 40–120 hours of technical and HR team time depending on data volume and destination system.
Configuration rebuild. Every ATS migration requires rebuilding your configured workflows in the new system: interview stages, scorecard templates, approval chains, offer templates, email templates, job posting templates, and integration connections. If you have five years of Greenhouse configuration built up, the rebuild cost is non-trivial. Budget 2–4 weeks of HR operations and recruiting leadership time to re-establish your workflow configuration.
Active candidate disruption. Candidates in active pipelines at the time of migration face the worst experience: their applications exist in two systems, interview coordination is disrupted, and communication continuity breaks. Best practice is to time ATS migrations to a low-hiring-volume period and run parallel systems for the shortest possible overlap. Even a well-managed migration typically affects the experience of several dozen active candidates.
Total estimated switching cost by scenario:
- Startup (50 employees, 2–3 years of data): $3,000–$6,000 in staff time + any migration tooling costs
- Mid-market (200 employees, 4–5 years of data): $8,000–$15,000 in staff time + potential migration partner costs
- Enterprise (500+ employees, 5+ years of data): $20,000–$50,000+ including potential consulting engagement and extended parallel operation period
These figures do not include the cost of lost productivity during the transition period — recruiter time spent on migration rather than hiring, extended time-to-fill for roles that could not be filled during the transition, or the opportunity cost of delayed hiring. Factor these into any platform switch decision, regardless of which direction you're moving.
Customer support compared
Support quality is one of the most impactful and least discussed differences between Greenhouse and Workable.
Greenhouse support: Base plan customers receive email and ticket-based support with response times measured in business days. Higher-tier customers receive a dedicated Customer Success Manager — a named individual who knows your account, your configuration, and your business context. The CSM relationship is genuinely valuable for enterprise customers: it provides a direct escalation path for critical issues, proactive configuration guidance as your hiring needs evolve, and a human who ensures you're getting value from the platform rather than just resolving tickets. The gap in support quality between Greenhouse's base tier and higher tiers is significant — something worth specifically negotiating when signing contracts.
Workable support: Live chat and email support are available to all paid plan customers, with response times that are generally measured in hours for non-complex issues. Premier plan customers receive phone support. Workable's support is adequate for the platform's complexity level — because Workable's configuration is simpler, most issues are resolved faster. What Workable lacks relative to Greenhouse's enterprise support is the proactive, relationship-based engagement that a dedicated CSM provides. Support is reactive rather than strategic.
Decision matrix: which platform fits your situation
Rather than declaring a winner in the abstract, this matrix maps specific company situations to the platform that is more likely to serve them well. Use it to identify which row most closely matches your current reality.
| Your Situation | Recommended Platform | Primary Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Startup, 20–75 employees, <30 hires/year, no dedicated recruiter | Workable (or Treegarden) | Fast setup, manageable cost, no implementation overhead |
| Scale-up, 100–300 employees, 50–150 hires/year, 1–2 dedicated recruiters | Workable (Standard/Premier) | Strong multiposting, manageable pricing, sufficient analytics |
| Mid-market, 200–500 employees, 150–400 hires/year, TA team of 3–8 | Greenhouse | Structured interviewing depth, sourcing analytics, HRIS integration |
| Enterprise, 500+ employees, 400+ hires/year, structured TA function | Greenhouse | Analytics depth, DEI reporting, integration ecosystem, CSM support |
| EU-based company, GDPR compliance is a legal obligation, not optional | Greenhouse (or GDPR-native ATS) | Automated retention policies, per-country configuration, deletion workflows |
| Company in fast growth phase, headcount will 3x in 24 months | Model both carefully | Workable's per-employee cost compounds fast; Greenhouse fixed cost may be cheaper at scale |
| Company in hiring freeze, cost reduction is the priority | Workable (or Treegarden) | Workable's per-job plans are lower cost during low-activity periods vs Greenhouse's fixed annual contract |
| PE-backed company, formal headcount approval process required | Greenhouse | Multi-stage approval workflows, audit trails, offer approval routing |
The third option: transparent pricing, no negotiation
Here's the honest version of where both Greenhouse and Workable leave meaningful gaps for a significant portion of their potential buyers: neither offers pricing you can plan a budget around without going through a sales process — and both have models that compound in ways buyers don't fully anticipate at signing.
Greenhouse's custom quote process puts you in a negotiation without a reference point. Workable's per-employee model ties your ATS cost to your payroll in a way that has nothing to do with your actual recruiting activity. Both platforms increase their prices at renewal, and both have switching costs high enough that by year two or three, the cost of leaving exceeds the cost of the price increase.
Treegarden was built with a different pricing philosophy: flat monthly pricing, published on the website, with all features included regardless of tier. Startup at $299/month, Growth at $499/month, Scale at $899/month. You can see the price before you talk to anyone. No per-employee fees. No feature gates. No annual contract renewals that reset your negotiating position.
From a feature perspective, Treegarden covers the core structured hiring workflow — custom pipeline stages, structured interview scorecards, multi-board job posting, GDPR-compliant data handling, offer management, and analytics — without the enterprise complexity of Greenhouse or the headcount-based cost escalation of Workable. It is worth evaluating specifically if you are a 30–300 person company whose hiring volume does not justify Greenhouse's overhead but whose compliance requirements make Workable's GDPR tooling insufficient.
The calibrated question for any ATS decision: What are you paying for that you're not using, and what does it cost you to stop? The answer to that question tells you more about platform fit than any feature checklist.
See exactly what Treegarden costs
All features included. Unlimited users. Plan-based job limits. No demo required to see the price. Startup: $299/mo · Growth: $499/mo · Scale: $899/mo.
View transparent pricing →Frequently asked questions
Is Greenhouse more expensive than Workable?
Yes, for most team sizes below 300 employees. Greenhouse uses fully custom enterprise pricing — customers report paying $6,000–$30,000+ annually depending on size. Workable's Standard plan is $3,800/year; Enterprise per-employee pricing typically runs $1.50–$4.50 per employee per month. At 300 employees and $3/month, Workable Enterprise is $10,800/year — cheaper than comparable Greenhouse contracts. At 1,000 employees, Workable's cost begins to rival Greenhouse's. Renewal increases of 8–15% annually are reported for Greenhouse; Workable scales automatically with headcount.
Which is easier to set up — Greenhouse or Workable?
Workable is significantly faster. Most teams post their first jobs within 24 hours. Greenhouse requires 4–8 weeks of structured onboarding — configuring scorecards, approval workflows, HRIS integrations, and offer templates. The Greenhouse setup investment pays off for high-volume, multi-recruiter hiring operations. For companies hiring fewer than 50 people per year with a lean team, the implementation overhead is real overhead, not a feature.
Does Greenhouse have better analytics than Workable?
Yes, materially. Greenhouse tracks sourcing attribution at the hire level, not just applicant level — a critical distinction for optimizing sourcing spend. It also provides structured feedback analytics, DEI funnel tracking with demographic breakdowns, and time-to-hire segmented by department, recruiter, and job level. Workable's analytics are solid for standard metrics but insufficient for complex, multi-recruiter operations where analytics directly drive strategy.
What are the real switching costs when moving from Greenhouse or Workable?
Higher than most buyers anticipate. Migrating candidate records, application histories, scorecard data, and configured workflows takes 40–120 hours of technical and HR team time depending on data volume. Configuration rebuild in the new system takes 2–4 weeks. Active candidate disruption during migration is a genuine risk. Total switching costs range from $3,000–$6,000 for small teams to $20,000–$50,000+ for enterprise customers. These figures do not include productivity loss or extended time-to-fill during the transition period.
Which ATS is better for GDPR compliance — Greenhouse or Workable?
Greenhouse. It supports configurable data retention policies per country, consent management with audit trails, automated deletion workflows with downstream propagation, and privacy notice management per job. Workable offers GDPR consent capture and basic deletion, but European companies in Germany, France, or the Netherlands frequently find Workable's automation insufficient for their legal obligations. Verify specific capabilities against your DPA's requirements before committing to either platform.
What is a good alternative to both Greenhouse and Workable?
Treegarden is worth evaluating if pricing transparency and predictability matter. Treegarden publishes flat monthly pricing — $299/mo Startup, $499/mo Growth, $899/mo Scale — with all features included at every tier. No per-employee fees, no custom quote process, no annual price negotiations. Coverage includes structured interviewing, multi-board posting, GDPR-compliant data handling, offer management, and analytics without the enterprise overhead of Greenhouse or the headcount-based cost escalation of Workable.
Does Workable have a free trial?
Yes. Workable offers a 15-day free trial with , covering most features including job posting and candidate management. Greenhouse does not offer a self-serve trial — access requires a demo and a sales conversation. This is itself a signal about go-to-market philosophy: Workable targets buyers who want to evaluate before committing; Greenhouse targets buyers already committed to enterprise ATS investment who are in a formal vendor selection process.