Greenhouse delivers a solution to help companies hire for what's next. Their hiring platform has users at companies like DoorDash, Dropbox and Wayfair, who use Greenhouse's intelligent guidance to design and automate all aspects of hiring.
N/A
PeopleFluent
Score 7.9 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
PeopleFluent includes modules for recruiting, performance management, compensation, learning, succession, and vendor management, as well as workforce planning and diversity. These modules can be purchased separately or bundled, and integrate with other HR systems.
N/A
Pricing
Greenhouse
PeopleFluent
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Greenhouse
PeopleFluent
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
Required
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Greenhouse
PeopleFluent
Considered Both Products
Greenhouse
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Greenhouse
Interms of price point Greenhouse is placed very well. The pricing is reasonable and affordable compared to its competitors. iCIMS is a lot bigger ATS with higher pricing and lot of features. I would rate Greenhouse higher on ease of usage and pricing
I prefer Greenhouse to Workday's built-in talent tool as Greenhouse is significantly more intuitive and easier to use. Our whole recruiting team prefers Greenhouse.
A lot of new features and Recruiter friendly Interface is what made us to choose Greenhouse over any other competition in Market. Cost is another factor as Greenhouse is available at a very competitive price in Market. This is an overall package for all your recruitment, …
Greenhouse has mastered the ATS tool and continuously improves features based on soliciting feedback from their customers. They do a great job at listening and adjusting based on the growing needs of their customers in the talent management space.
Greenhouse is better in terms of usability as it user-friendly and easy to navigate around. It has helped streamline the recruitment process which allows automation of job postings to social sites, candidate search.
From the HR team, it has helped them to provide a better …
I've previous used a recruitment tool powered by Salesforce at a previous company. This tool was effective for sourcing through a resume database however not as user-friendly for managing talent pipelines. Greenhouse is one of the best recruitment tools to onboard teams onto …
Greenhouse definitely compares favorably to its main competitors. The last few years have seen massive investments in recruiting technology companies, leading to a bit of an arms race with each of the top players in the market offering robust roadmaps of forthcoming features. …
Greenhouse does a much better job making the applying process smoother than other competitors. Specifically, I find that when using Greenhouse the time it takes to fill out the application and submit is significantly less than most other services. I'd even say that I am more …
I prefer Greenhouse to the other products as their suite of services seems to be much larger and more diverse. By using Greenhouse I know that I can use it for the whole process from introduction to hiring whereas in some others I cannot and will need to loop in other products.
Greenhouse is the standard, it is the most expensive but it's worth it. If you wanted to spend less, I'd suggest Lever but that will also mean cutting on some neat features that could improve your recruiting process.
GH was already there at my work. GH overall better experience better customization, more options, more professional and developed compared to recruitee (later/newer stage ATS)
Tools appears very light to use. It does not take forever to load. the interface is very simple but capable, unlike many ATS's. The tools is Simple yet loaded with very useful functionalities that save a lot of time and expedites the processes. For different stakeholders, the …
Many startups will end up using Lever or Greenhouse as an ATS system and they are very comparable. I love Lever as well but Greenhouse just has more functionalities and it higher capacities especially working with a bigger company from 500-1000 high growth scale. Lever is a …
I believe that Lever is slightly better than Greenhouse as it's more convenient and you can communicate with candidates through it. However, I do think Greenhouse is really useful and has almost all the features you may need to track candidates and job postings. My company uses …
The design of Greenhouse is straightforward and organized. We evaluated other applicant tracking systems recently and found them to still stand out as one of the most user-friendly. It serves many vital functions that a couple of other applicant tracking systems lacked. The …
We wanted to bring in the function of the manager interaction from our requirements as other ATS are kind of static and sometimes the updates are delayed. This down time would cost our speed to market since there was a clog with the updates. I want to say it stacks up fairly …
We already had a relationship with peoplefluent and were offered assistance through implementation and deployment. We couldn't walk away from our current vendor.
Out of the VMS's listed, I'd say PeopleFluent is solidly in the middle. Fieldglass and IQN are probably easier to navigate and more modern looking, and I definitely don't run into the login problems with them. Beeline and PRO Wand are probably on par with PeopleFluent. They …
PeopleFluent had an easier degree of use in screening and Talent Acquisition than others I have used. I would highly recommend PeopleFluent. It takes minimal training and can quickly get it up and running.
Its great, its very versatile and stacks up very well against the competition. In terms of usability and ease of use, anyone can quickly learn how to use PeopleFluent. Again, the faults against the system would be when a client who is running the tool customizes it to their …
I like the ease of Peoplefluent and I like how we can have questions for certain areas to screen candidates before considering to bring them in for an interview.
In my opinion Peoplefluent better fit our needs for flexibility and "total package". Peoplefluent's Compensation, Performance and Succession platforms work quite well with each other. Additionally the administrative features and requirements are easy to grasp and very flexible.
Features
Greenhouse
PeopleFluent
Recruiting / ATS
Comparison of Recruiting / ATS features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse
8.7
Ratings
8% above category average
PeopleFluent
9.5
Ratings
28% above category average
Job Requisition Management
9.60 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Company Website Posting
9.60 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Publish to Social Media
7.30 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Job Search Site Posting
7.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Customized Application Form
7.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Resume Management
9.80 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Duplicate Candidate Prevention
8.00 Ratings
6.00 Ratings
Candidate Search
8.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Applicant Tracking
9.40 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Collaboration
9.00 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Task Creation and Delegation
9.10 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Email Templates
9.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
User Permissions
9.00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Notifications and Alerts
9.50 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Reporting
7.50 Ratings
10.00 Ratings
Onboarding
Comparison of Onboarding features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse
-
Ratings
PeopleFluent
8.0
Ratings
9% above category average
New hire portal
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Manager tracking tools
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Compliance tracking and reporting
00 Ratings
8.00 Ratings
Performance and Goals
Comparison of Performance and Goals features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse
-
Ratings
PeopleFluent
8.2
Ratings
14% above category average
Corporate goal setting
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Subordinate goal setting
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Individual goal setting
00 Ratings
9.00 Ratings
Line-of sight-visibility
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Performance tracking
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Performance Management
Comparison of Performance Management features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse
-
Ratings
PeopleFluent
6.5
Ratings
1% below category average
Performance plans
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Plan weighting
00 Ratings
4.00 Ratings
Manager note taking
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Performance improvement plans
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Review status tracking
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Rater nomination workflow
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Review reminders
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Workflow restrictions
00 Ratings
5.00 Ratings
Multiple review frequency
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Reporting
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Succession Planning
Comparison of Succession Planning features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse
-
Ratings
PeopleFluent
6.3
Ratings
9% below category average
Create succession plans/pools
00 Ratings
7.00 Ratings
Candidate ranking
00 Ratings
6.00 Ratings
Candidate search
00 Ratings
6.00 Ratings
Candidate development
00 Ratings
6.00 Ratings
Learning Management
Comparison of Learning Management features of Product A and Product B
Greenhouse merges very well with most of the Job Board we use such as Indeed, Linkedin Recruiter and others. It makes it easy to import date from these job boards onto the system. However, more can be done when it comes to bulk candidate import, I think there should be a feature that allows us to adding bulk candidates at a go.
PeopleFluent has eliminated the use of paper reviews. It is also eliminated the use of scanning, emailing or interoffice mail. It is a great tool for communication and I highly recommend it. However, in some ways, the product can be improved. Some processes are tied to each other and could function in tandem. For example, while completing the self-review, the employee has to capture multi-raters. If self-review is submitted without listing multi-rater names then multi-rater review has to be captured separately on paper. In my opinion, these two processes can be different. Multi-raters should be added/removed/modified after submitting self-review.
Greenhouse Security is simple, but not that granular. For example, everytime new recruiter joins, we have to give them access manually one by one. There is no one click or an easy way to auto assign security unlike other systems that we use such as Workday.
Greenhouse reporting is very lacking. Even though we are on the highest tier, we cannot extract data through this delivered feature. For example, scorecard custom questions. We have to do this through SQL.
Greenhouse Audit Log is also lacking. It is not useful at all. We cannot even see what job info changed and who changed it even though we are on the highest tier now.
I would advise better filtering options when pulling up candidate profiles, we should have multiple functions when requesting candidates profile.
Sometimes I get huge projects and need to move more than 20 people, it's a headache moving groups in parts.
A faster way to verify if a candidate has been double submitted, maybe with a unique ID or email that identifies said candidate prior to going through the whole submission process.
Stronger cache cookies when session is timed out get kicked out and the process reboots. Sometimes recruiters are pulled in different directions while multitasking.
PeopleFluent continues to develop an already high quality product and works to continually improve the user experience. The different modules integrate well, and the administrative functions are easy to understand and perform resulting in less time spent with KTLO functions. They provide world class customer service and work hard to keep you engaged as a customer.
The overall interface is very easy to understand and it is capable. There are a lot of very useful functionalities that help in productivity as simple as tags for the coordinators to manage their day to day tasks. The continuous improvements greenhouse brings to the users are really impressive. We use quite a few integrations with it and they help the job even hassle free.
PeopleFluent seems to have all the functionality one would need, but it can be a bit overwhelming. Depending on the client implementation, it can be downright confusing and not intuitive. My 6 rating comes from the fact that it seems like the system can be configured to actually be confusing and not make sense. I think a VMS should be set up not to allow a customer to configure it in such a way as to not really work, or to allow users to circumvent steps. I also really don't like the "organization key" that needs to be entered every time you log in. Why is a login and password good enough for 99% of the systems out there, but PeopleFluent requires an extra field?
I have never needed to call Greenhouse for support. I am not the primary account holder, nor do I use Greenhouse enough to merit calling support. I delegate that responsibility to the Recruiting team. They have never mentioned any experience with Greenhouse technical support, either bad or good. I would assume that they would tell me if the support was poor.
In my experience, the support team was very prompt and helpful. They had good subject matter expertise and were able to troubleshoot immediately. At times we wanted some enhancements but it was not possible due to product limitations. But, the support team was helpful in suggesting alternatives for our requirements. The customer support staff was also very polite and friendly.
A lot of new features and Recruiter friendly Interface is what made us to choose Greenhouse over any other competition in Market. Cost is another factor as Greenhouse is available at a very competitive price in Market. This is an overall package for all your recruitment, Engagement and reporting needs.
Out of the VMS's listed, I'd say PeopleFluent is solidly in the middle. Fieldglass and IQN are probably easier to navigate and more modern looking, and I definitely don't run into the login problems with them. Beeline and PRO Wand are probably on par with PeopleFluent. They have their plusses and minuses in terms of navigation and ease of use. Covendis is definitely worse than PeopleFluent. Covendis is a mess - very difficult to navigate, not intuitive at all with terrible workflow. Again, I didn't select PeopleFluent; my client did, and I have chosen to work with them, therefore I work with PeopleFluent.
I do believe that goal setting and the workflow of following up, going through the process yearly is as good as you make it. If you set good goals, or help your team make good goals then the experience can go well. Otherwise it's just another thing that an employee is doing to make their manager happy.
I am not sure the cost of the product, but if it is really expensive I am not sure that we are getting fully what we should be for what the product offers. Make sure you are using what is offered.