Workable vs Greenhouse vs Reqcore

Workable is the cheaper, faster-to-set-up choice for SMB and mid-market teams that want recruiting plus light HR in one bill. Greenhouse is built for teams with a dedicated recruiting function that need structured, auditable hiring at a price it won't disclose until you talk to sales.

• Pricing model: Workable publishes flat monthly plans by employee-headcount band; Greenhouse is quote-only, with no public number.
• Structured hiring: Greenhouse's interview kits and scorecards are the deeper tool; Workable's evaluation features are lighter and collaborative rather than enforced.
• Sourcing: Workable ships a built-in candidate-sourcing database; Greenhouse's sourcing/CRM tools are a supporting feature, not the core product.
• A third option: Reqcore prices per active role instead of by seat or headcount, with unlimited applicants on every plan and no cost until your first shortlist.

Greenhouse doesn't publish a single price on its own site — every plan is a sales quote — while Workable puts its full pricing table on the page and lets you start a 15-day trial without talking to anyone.

Reqcore is our product, so treat the sections below accordingly: we compare Workable and Greenhouse on their own terms first, and say plainly where each one — including Reqcore — is and isn't the right pick.

Workable vs Greenhouse vs Reqcore at a glance

Pricing: one publishes a number, one doesn't

Workable's Standard plan starts at $360/month for a 1–20 employee company (or $288/month billed annually), with Premier at $599/month and Enterprise at $719/month at the same headcount band, all confirmed on Workable's own pricing page as of 16 July 2026. Every tier scales up as headcount crosses a new band, and texting, video interviews and assessments are separate paid add-ons on Standard. The full breakdown, including what a fully-loaded plan actually costs, is in what Workable actually costs by headcount.

Greenhouse takes the opposite approach: its pricing page lists no numbers at all, confirmed as of 5 July 2026 — plans are named Core, Plus and Pro, and every one requires a sales conversation. Greenhouse doesn't disclose figures publicly, but buyer-reported estimates compiled by Venture Harbour in April 2026 put Core around $6,000–$10,000/year for teams under 50 employees, climbing into five and six figures at larger headcounts, plus $2,000–$8,000 in separately-quoted implementation fees. Those are third-party estimates, not numbers Greenhouse itself publishes — treat them as directional, not exact.

Greenhouse's own pricing page publishes nothing, while Workable puts its full table — and the maths on what add-ons actually cost — in front of you before you sign up.

Structured hiring is Greenhouse's strongest ground

Interview kits, standardised scorecards and anonymous candidate reviews are Greenhouse's core differentiator: they force every interviewer onto the same evaluation criteria instead of relying on memory or gut feel. That discipline is genuinely valuable once a company has multiple hiring managers running loops in parallel and needs a defensible record of why one candidate was picked over another.

Workable's evaluation tools are collaborative rather than enforced — hiring teams can score and comment on candidates, but there's no equivalent of Greenhouse's interview-kit structure. For a team making a handful of hires a quarter with one or two people owning the process, that's rarely a gap that matters. It becomes one once a company is running structured loops across a dozen interviewers a role.

Sourcing and setup favour Workable

Workable ships a built-in candidate-sourcing database on top of its applicant tracking — reviewers who tested it in 2026 describe searchable coverage in the hundreds of millions of profiles, filterable by employment history and skills (Venture Harbour, April 2026). Workable also distributes job postings to 200+ boards, though not all of that reach is free — promoted placements cost extra on top of the subscription, as covered in the pricing breakdown linked above.

Greenhouse's sourcing tools — a CRM with talent matching and referral tracking — exist, but the product isn't built around them the way Workable is; Greenhouse's own pricing page frames the product around structured hiring, not candidate discovery.

Setup follows the same split: Workable's free trial gets a team live within days with no sales call, while Greenhouse's quote-only pricing means a sales conversation before you can evaluate anything, plus implementation work that buyer reports put at $2,000–$8,000 for smaller tiers.

On G2, both products currently sit close together on rating — Workable at 4.5/5 and Greenhouse at 4.4/5 — though Greenhouse's review count is roughly five times larger, reflecting its bigger mid-market and enterprise footprint rather than a quality gap (checked on G2's Greenhouse vs. Workable comparison, 19 July 2026).

Or the pricing model itself is the problem

Some of the friction in this comparison isn't Workable versus Greenhouse — it's that both price by a proxy for company size (employee headcount for Workable, negotiated contract value for Greenhouse) rather than by how much hiring you're actually doing. A team that hires in bursts pays the same Workable band all year, and a team asking Greenhouse for a quote is negotiating against its own headcount before the conversation starts.

Reqcore takes a different model: unlimited applicants on every plan, free until your first shortlist with no card and no time limit, and pricing set per active role rather than by seat or by how many people you employ. It won't match Greenhouse's interview-kit depth or Workable's 200+ board reach out of the box, but for a team whose real problem is applicant volume rather than process enforcement, the pricing model itself is the more direct fix than switching between two headcount- and contract-based vendors. A dedicated Reqcore-vs-Workable comparison, walking through that pricing-model difference in full, is next on our list to publish.

Who should pick which

Choose Workable if you're an SMB or mid-market team without a dedicated recruiter, want published pricing and a self-serve trial, and value built-in sourcing reach over process enforcement.

Choose Greenhouse if you have a dedicated recruiting function running structured loops across multiple hiring managers, need the audit trail for compliance or DE&I reporting, and the budget supports a five-figure-plus annual contract.

Choose Reqcore if the actual bottleneck is applicant volume rather than process structure, you don't want your bill to grow with headcount or a sales negotiation, and you'd rather start free than book a demo. Reqcore's core is also open source, for teams that want that option later. If you specifically need Greenhouse's compliance-grade scorecarding or Workable's job-board breadth today, one of those two is honestly the better fit right now — this page's job is to make that call accurately, not to argue you out of it.