Teamtailor vs Greenhouse: Talent Hiring Guide 2026

The hiring decision this search is asking

An applicant tracking system is the software a company uses to publish jobs, collect applications, move people through stages, and record a hire or a rejection. Teamtailor and Greenhouse both sell that system, and both were still selling it under these names on the pages opened for this guide. Neither product has been discontinued. What did change is Greenhouse's plan labels. A buyer's guide dates that label change to Plan rename year: 2025 according to Truffle (2026), from Essential, Advanced, and Expert to the Core plan, the Plus plan, and the Pro plan. If a leftover quote still uses the old labels, get a written map before you compare it with a new quote.

The category decision comes first. If applicants are meeting a generic job board and hiring managers cannot explain the company, the career site is the hole. If every interviewer invents different questions and leadership cannot see a consistent score, the interview system is the hole. Teamtailor publishes the first story. Greenhouse publishes the second. Price will not break the tie in public, because neither vendor prints a dollar amount.

TL;DR: pick Teamtailor when the career site, team stories, and a talent pool are the reason people do not apply, and pick Greenhouse when scorecards, approvals, and controls that sit on higher plans are the reason offers go to the wrong people. Keep both on the shortlist only if you will pay for two systems and name a person who reconciles them.

Key Takeaways

• Both products are Quote-based on the pages checked for this guide. Teamtailor's pricing page does not name tiers. Greenhouse's pricing page names three tiers and still prints no dollars.

• Teamtailor's public offer stresses unlimited jobs, unlimited users, support for every user, and over 250 features, plus a career site. Greenhouse's public offer stresses kits, scorecards, scheduling, and a CRM from the entry plan, then moves texting, automation, and a sandbox upward.

• On Greenhouse's own matrix, texting, sourcing automation, auto-reject, auto-advance, and the business intelligence connector start on the Plus plan. The audit log and the developer sandbox are on the Pro plan.

• A documentation check records 450 native integrations for Teamtailor and 451 for Greenhouse. A directory count is not proof that your HR system, background-check vendor, or chat tool is in that directory.

• Greenhouse's application list can be filtered, and the reference caps how many ids and how many rows one call returns. Any side process that reads it still needs a person before a stage changes.

• Old paperwork that says Essential, Advanced, or Expert is not a current plan name. Ask for the 2025 label map before finance compares two quotes.

How we evaluated these tools

This guide is a desk review of pages opened on October 10, 2026. It is not a product trial, and it does not rank the vendors from a lab. The weights below are buying weights for a head of talent at a mid-size company who already knows they need an applicant tracking system and is choosing between these two. Points equal the weight on purpose. They are not a score we assigned after using either product.

Structured interviews carry the most weight because a mid-size company feels unfair hiring in the debrief, not in the feature list. The career site is next because a beautiful pipeline cannot repair a page that gives candidates no reason to finish an application. Automation, audit, and exports share the middle because each one becomes urgent the moment more than one team hires at once. Price transparency is real, and it is last, because both vendors withhold the number. A lower weight does not mean you skip the quote. It means a missing sticker price is shared, so it should not pretend to pick a winner.

We treated a vendor page as the source for what that vendor claims, and a checker page as the source for what that checker recorded. Where those pages disagree, the disagreement stays visible. Where a figure was not on a page opened for this session, it is not in this article. A wider look at how recruiting teams compare applicant tracking systems belongs beside this pair, not instead of the page-level check.

Who should stay in this comparison

Stay with this pair if you run in-house hiring, hiring managers sit in the loop, and you are choosing a system of record for jobs and candidates rather than a payroll suite. You care about at least one of two public differences: a career site the vendor treats as part of the product, or a scorecard the vendor treats as the spine of the interview. You can wait for a quote, and you can name an owner for the career page, the scorecard template, and the requisition path.

Red flags:

• You require a dollar price on a public page before any sales conversation.

• You need payroll, benefits administration, and the employee record inside the same product.

• You will not name an owner for scorecards, approvals, or the career site.

Staffing agencies that live in a different kind of desk, and companies that hire so rarely that one person can track candidates in a shared sheet, can leave this comparison. That is a workload judgment, not a headcount cutoff. This article does not invent an employee or revenue line you must cross.

Public facts, kept separate from our read

Teamtailor's pricing page offers a quote, states unlimited job postings and unlimited users, promises support for all users, and says it serves more than 13,000 companies in over 90 countries, with Listed features: over 250 according to Teamtailor (2026). The page does not name a Starter plan, a Growth plan, or any other tier, and it does not print a dollar figure. The company footer on that page places Teamtailor AB in Stockholm.

On the employer-branding page, which does not show a sample size or a method, Teamtailor states a Faster-process claim: 89% according to Teamtailor (2026), meaning customers who say their hiring process is faster. The same page shows a 94% claim that customers collaborate better with their team and a 97% claim of an increase in qualified candidates. Treat those three figures as the vendor's own claims. The page also describes a drag-and-drop career site, team stories, employee referrals, multi-language pages, mobile-friendly applications, a Connect talent pool, nurture messages, and candidate NPS surveys.

Greenhouse publishes Public plans: 3 according to Greenhouse (2026): the Core plan, the Plus plan, and the Pro plan. No dollar amount appears on any of them. The Core plan's published include list covers sourcing and CRM, structured interview kits and scorecards, an AI Notetaker, scheduling, reporting and analytics, SSO, and talent matching. The Plus plan adds AI-powered report filters, a business intelligence connector, sourcing automation, and texting. The Pro plan adds unlimited CRM events, enterprise data configuration and security, an audit log, and a developer sandbox. The matrix marks job and offer approvals, candidate self-scheduling, and U.S. demographic questions on all three plans. It marks auto-reject, auto-advance, multi-brand job boards, and dependent custom fields starting on the Plus plan. Resume anonymization, application limits, configurable session timeouts, the audit log, and the sandbox are marked on the Pro plan. A row labeled "1 CRM event" is marked on all three plans, while unlimited CRM events are named in the Pro summary. Ask the seller what cap that row actually sets.

A documentation check records Native integrations: 451 according to LeadChange (2026), along with 13 free built-in job boards, 11 of 12 core applicant-tracking capabilities marked verified, a 2012 founding in New York, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, a GDPR program, iOS and Android apps, and standard support from Sunday 6:00 p.m. to Friday 6:00 p.m. Pacific. The same check says a 30-minute, around-the-clock response target for urgent issues sits on premium support at an unpublished fee. Career site and mobile apply were still marked not verified on that checklist, even though Greenhouse's pricing page shows an internal job board and, on higher plans, multi-brand boards.

The same checker records Native integrations: 450 according to LeadChange (2026), with 9 of 12 core capabilities marked verified. It lists customizable flows with triggers, scheduling, interview kits and scorecards, email, SMS, WhatsApp, a Connect talent pool, a career site builder, an audit log, SSO with two-factor login, iOS and Android apps, a JSON API, and a Co-pilot that the checker says can draft job text, summarize resumes, and suggest interview questions. EEO reporting, resume parsing, and the career-site capability were marked not verified on that checklist. Teamtailor's own branding page is still the place that describes the career site in the vendor's words. LeadChange also lists SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and a GDPR program for Teamtailor. Pricing remains Quote-based in that check.

Our read of those facts, separate from the pages: Teamtailor is asking you to buy a candidate-facing front door and an ATS together, without a public tier grid. Greenhouse is asking you to buy a structured process whose governance features are visibly sliced by plan. The integration counts are one apart. They should not decide the purchase. The plan grid should, because a missing audit log or a missing texting channel changes daily work, and a directory of 450 versus 451 does not.

Where the two products actually diverge

Read the matrix as published scope, not as a beauty contest. Teamtailor puts the career site, stories, languages, and the talent-pool signup on its own marketing pages, and the pricing page refuses to say which of those sit behind a higher quote. Greenhouse will tell you, on a public grid, that texting and auto-advance are not on the entry plan and that the audit log is not on the middle plan. That honesty about gates is useful even while the price stays hidden.

For a U.S. talent lead, Greenhouse's grid also marks EEOC data management and standard demographic questions on every current plan. Teamtailor's checker left EEO and adverse-impact reporting unverified. Do not treat that as an absence. Put the question on the quote: where demographic answers live, who can see them, and how long they are kept. A career page that advertises benefits should be just as careful. If the page mentions association health plans, use a real definition, such as what an employer association health plan is, instead of a slogan.

A practical setup order for whichever vendor you pick is covered in a practical ATS setup sequence. Use it to list owners. Do not use it as a promise that either vendor implements itself.

What a quote has to itemize

Pricing checked October 10, 2026.

There is no total cost of ownership in dollars in this table because neither pricing page publishes one. Inventing a yearly figure from a forum, a marketplace, or a rival's blog would fail the only rule that matters here: the number has to be on that vendor's own pricing page. Both are Quote-based. Budget conversations should carry line items, not a guessed license.

Ask Teamtailor which of the advertised features are actually in the quote you received, because the public page does not split them. Ask whether the audit log, SSO, Co-pilot, SMS, WhatsApp, and the career site builder are included or attached later. Ask how headcount, hiring volume, and contract length move the number, and what support for all users includes after go-live. Ask for the data region. Teamtailor's API support article, opened for this guide, describes separate bases for Europe, North America, and Asia-Pacific, and it says candidate records require an Admin-scoped key created by a Company Admin. That is a prerequisite for any side process, not a price.

Ask Greenhouse for three written quotes, or one quote that prices all three plans, so you can see the step from the Core plan to the Plus plan to the Pro plan. Ask what "1 CRM event" allows, whether sourcing automation is inside the Plus plan or an add-on, and what premium support costs. Ask whether the quote is annual only. The pricing page we opened does not show a monthly public rate. Ask who configures scorecards, job templates, and the demographic questions, and whether implementation is inside the license. Neither pricing page states a setup duration, so a seller's "a few weeks" is a sales sentence until it is a dated plan with names on it.

Renewal language belongs on the order form, not in this article. We did not open a Greenhouse or Teamtailor page that prints an annual increase percent. If a third-party guide offers one, treat it as someone else's report and make the seller write the increase cap into the contract you sign.

Planner math for one quarter

The sheet below is planner arithmetic for a talent lead who wants to see coordinator time before buying a second tool. The counts are assumptions for the illustration. They are not a benchmark, not a vendor study, and not a measured deployment.

Use this as planner arithmetic, not as a result anyone measured: 8 open roles at 40 applications each produce 320 applications, and 6 minutes of hand-copying per application produce 1,920 minutes, which is 32 hours. Those 8 roles can be requested through the job_ids filter. The same reference documents a Maximum page size: 500 according to Greenhouse (2026), a default per_page of 100, and a cap of 50 ids, so the role filter fits in one call and the 320 rows need further pages. A person still checks the file before any stage change. The other lines on the sheet use the same style of assumption: 8 kickoffs at 30 minutes (4 hours), 16 scorecard chases at 15 minutes (4 hours), 8 offer packets at 45 minutes (6 hours), and 12 meetings at 30 minutes (6 hours). Added together, that planning sheet is 52 hours in the quarter, of which the 32 hours are the copy work a cleaner status feed is meant to shrink.

That 52-hour figure is the sum of those five assumptions. Change the 40 applications or the 6 minutes and the hours change with them. Do not hand the 32 hours to finance as a savings guarantee. Hand them the assumptions and the vendor's page-size limits, then ask the implementation lead whether your plan even includes API access.

Teamtailor, for brand-led hiring desks

Teamtailor fits a mid-size company whose applicants stall on a dull careers page, whose hiring managers will not learn a heavy system, and whose recruiters want email, SMS, and a talent pool in the same place as the jobs. The public pages support that fit: unlimited users on the quote page, a builder and team stories on the branding page, and triggers, kits, and scorecards in the documentation check. Multi-language pages matter if you hire in more than one country and do not want a separate site per language. The Connect pool matters if people who are not ready to apply are still worth keeping, which is common when a company hires in bursts.

Teamtailor is a weak fit when you need a public plan grid before you believe a feature is included, when U.S. demographic reporting must be confirmed before signature and the checker has not verified it, or when finance will not accept Quote-based pricing. It is also a weak fit if your main pain is interviewer consistency across many departments and you want that method taught inside the product more than you want a designed career site. The 89%, 94%, and 97% claims are not a reason by themselves. The page does not show who was asked.

Implementation, from public information only, starts with a quote and an admin who can build the career site, the departments, and the stage triggers. Confirm the data region before any migration. Confirm that the people who must read candidate records will be allowed an Admin key, because the support article restricts that data. Confirm whether the audit log in the documentation check is in your edition. Ask who owns team stories after launch, because a builder without new stories becomes a template. No public page we opened states a fixed setup fee or a fixed number of training hours.

Primary pages for this profile are the pricing page and the employer-branding page cited above, plus the documentation check that recorded the 450 integrations. Those are the sources. Logos on the branding page are the vendor's logos, not case studies this guide verified.

Greenhouse, for structured hiring desks

Greenhouse fits a mid-size company that already feels the cost of inconsistent interviews. Kits and scorecards are on the Core plan, not held for the top tier. Job and offer approvals are on the Core plan too, which matters when a requisition should not open because a manager typed a title into a chat. A separate note on how a requisition approval can sit on top of Greenhouse shows that pattern as a workflow question, and a Greenhouse and Slack approval recipe shows one way a chat channel can carry the approval without replacing the system of record. Reporting and SSO are on the entry plan. The business intelligence connector arrives on the Plus plan, which is the right question if talent analytics already live in a warehouse.

Greenhouse is a weak fit when the career site is the actual complaint and you do not want a second project to make the board feel like the company. It is a weak fit if you need texting, auto-advance, or sourcing automation and the quote you can afford stops at the Core plan. It is a weak fit if security wants an audit log and a sandbox and the quote stops at the Plus plan. It is a weak fit if you need payroll in the same login. LeadChange's module list for Greenhouse is recruiting, sourcing, CRM, onboarding, and reporting, not the core HR record. Companies that want a broader menu of systems can read Greenhouse alternatives for recruiting firms after this comparison, not before they understand the plan gates.

Implementation questions to put in the statement of work: who writes the scorecard attributes, who maintains job templates, how demographic answers are permissioned, which of the 13 free job boards you will actually use, and how the "1 CRM event" row is counted. Ask for the premium support price if weekend coverage matters. Ask whether onboarding in the module list is in your plan or a separate module. The Harvest list endpoint used in the planner section is a read path. Writing stage changes, offers, or rejections needs a broader credential and a human checkpoint. Nothing on the pricing page says that work is done for you.

Primary pages are Greenhouse's pricing page, the Harvest applications reference, and the LeadChange check that recorded 451 integrations and the 2012 founding. Older guides that still say Essential, Advanced, and Expert are describing the pre-2025 labels.

Mistakes that blow the shortlist

• Treating a marketplace median or a rival's blog as the license price. If it is not on the vendor pricing page, it is not the price in this guide.

• Buying the Core plan on Greenhouse and expecting texting, auto-advance, the BI connector, or the audit log. The grid puts those higher.

• Assuming Teamtailor's unlimited users include unlimited admin work, a free migration, or every integration in the directory of 450.

• Letting the career site and the ATS drift, so the story on the site and the stages in the pipeline describe two different companies.

• Turning on a stage-change automation with no reviewer, then discovering duplicate applications moved twice.

• Comparing a 2024 quote that says Expert with a 2026 quote that says the Pro plan, without the rename map from 2025.

• Counting 451 integrations as 451 tools you own. Confirm the HRIS, the calendar, the assessment, and the background check by name.

Terms worth pinning down

• Applicant tracking system. The record of jobs, applications, interviews, and the hire or reject decision.

• Employer brand. What a candidate can actually learn about working at the company before they apply.

• Career site. The page, often built inside the ATS, where jobs and stories live.

• Scorecard. The attribute list interviewers fill in so a debrief compares evidence, not memory.

• CRM event. Greenhouse's public label for activity on a prospect. The grid shows a "1 CRM event" row on every plan and unlimited events in the Pro summary. Confirm the cap.

• Quote-based. The vendor will not print a dollar price. You get a number only after a sales conversation.

• Audit log. A record of who changed what. Publicly pinned to the Pro plan on Greenhouse, and listed without a public tier on Teamtailor.

• Requisition approval. The sign-off before a job opens. On Greenhouse's matrix it is included from the Core plan.

The handoff neither ATS finishes alone

Most talent teams do not suffer because they lack one more checkbox inside the ATS. They suffer because a requisition, a career-site edit, a scorecard, and a status sheet live in different places, and someone copies between them. That copy work is the 32-hour line in the planner sheet. The ATS can store the application. It does not, by itself, prove that the other system matches.

When a Greenhouse application lands on a job the talent lead already approved, a proposed workflow from US Tech Automations can read the application list, keep only the job_ids the recruiter named, and write a review file that shows stage, source, and whether a scorecard is missing. The output is a queue a coordinator opens on a schedule you choose. Nothing moves a candidate, sends a message, or edits a stage until a person marks the row reviewed. Prerequisites are a Greenhouse credential that can list applications, a page size that respects the documented default of 100 and the cap of 50 ids, and an agreed job list. This is a configurable design, not a live customer and not a measured saving.

A second proposed path starts when a requisition is approved in Greenhouse and the role still needs a matching job on a Teamtailor career site, or the reverse, when a Teamtailor hire should close an opening elsewhere. US Tech Automations would take the approved requisition as the trigger, compare title and location with the other system's open jobs, and produce an exception list of roles that exist on only one side. A recruiter reviews that list before any create or close call. Prerequisites are an export or a key on each system, a Company Admin key if Teamtailor candidate or job writes are in scope, and a rule that similar titles do not merge themselves.

The reader's real alternative is often stitching the same steps in Zapier, Make, or n8n, or building them in-house. Those tools can keep run histories, retries, error branches, and audit evidence when someone configures them. The buyer then designs and owns observability, idempotency so the same application is not processed twice, escalation when a call fails, access control on the keys, and maintenance when a field name changes. A US Tech Automations configuration can place the human review in front of any stage change, store the exception file, and stop the run when an id list would exceed the vendor cap. It does not delete those duties. It is another place to set them, and it still requires the keys and the reviewer.

US Tech Automations is the wrong layer when the team only needs a trigger that already lives inside one ATS and one coordinator watches it, when the plan will not include an API key or an Admin scope, or when the real gap is career-site copy and interviewer training rather than a handoff between systems. In those cases the vendor's own triggers, or a short checklist, are the smaller tool that fits. A company that has not outgrown a single pipeline should not add a second workflow product to look modern.

Questions talent leads ask before the quote

Are Teamtailor and Greenhouse discontinued or renamed?

No. Both products are still sold under these names. Greenhouse's plan labels changed in 2025 from Essential, Advanced, and Expert to the Core plan, the Plus plan, and the Pro plan.

Do either of these vendors publish a price?

No. Both are Quote-based. Teamtailor does not name public tiers. Greenhouse names three plans and prints no dollars. Pricing checked October 10, 2026.

Which Greenhouse plan includes texting, and which includes the audit log?

Texting is on the Plus plan and the Pro plan. The audit log and the developer sandbox are on the Pro plan. The Core plan includes kits, scorecards, scheduling, CRM, reporting, and SSO.

What does Teamtailor's public pricing page actually include?

It includes unlimited job postings, unlimited users, support for all users, and over 250 features, and it does not include a dollar amount or a tier grid. Feature gates have to be written into the quote.

Should a mid-size team run both products?

Only if the career site and the structured interview process must live in different systems and a named person reconciles jobs and statuses. Running both without that owner creates the copy work the planner sheet describes.

Can Zapier, Make, or n8n replace a dedicated handoff design?

They can move the records, retry failed steps, and keep a run history when you configure them. They do not supply the review rule, the key ownership, or the duplicate protection unless you build those yourself.

What to do with the two quotes

Send both sellers the same written list: career site ownership, scorecard templates, texting, auto-advance, audit log, sandbox, SSO, demographic data, the HRIS by name, the data region, support hours, and what is not in the license. Refuse any comparison that uses a price this guide did not read on the vendor's pricing page. Put the 2025 plan-label map in the Greenhouse file before anyone says Expert and the Pro plan are the same line item.

Then decide on the hole you actually have. If candidates never reach a fair interview because the site gives them nothing, weight Teamtailor's published career-site story higher, and make the seller mark every branding feature on the order form. If candidates arrive and the debrief is still a debate, weight Greenhouse's kits, approvals, and plan gates higher, and buy the plan that contains the controls you will use in the first quarter, not the plan you hope to upgrade into later. If the remaining pain is the copy between systems, see how US Tech Automations configures this as a proposed review queue with a human checkpoint, after the ATS decision, not instead of it.