Ashby vs Greenhouse Pricing and AI Screening

Short answer: Ashby publishes its entry pricing and Greenhouse does not. Checked on August 25, 2026, Ashby's All-In-One Foundations plan runs $300 to $900 a month across five company-size bands up to 100 employees, while Greenhouse lists Core, Plus and Pro with no rate anywhere and a "Get a demo" button under all three. Both now screen inbound resumes with AI, and both meter or gate it: Ashby draws application review from a shared AI credit pool included on every plan, Greenhouse runs Talent Matching in five match bands on a single pipeline stage that a recruiter activates per job. For companies under 100 employees, Ashby is the cheaper and more predictable purchase. Above roughly 300 employees, where governance and audit requirements arrive, the two stop being comparable and Greenhouse's case gets stronger.

Last updated August 2026.

How much does Ashby cost vs Greenhouse?

Ashby costs $300 to $900 a month at the entry plan. Greenhouse costs a median of $26,611 a year according to Vendr data covering 868 purchases, and publishes nothing itself. That is the whole comparison in two sentences, and it is worth sitting with, because the two vendors have made opposite decisions about what a buyer is allowed to know before a sales call.

Ashby's pricing page carries a live calculator. Pick a company size band, pick monthly or yearly, and it returns a total. We pulled all five bands rather than the one the page loads with, because the default selection is 11 to 25 employees and that is the source of the "$400 a month" figure repeated across most articles about Ashby. It is the second band of five, not the entry rate.

A useful way to read the right-hand column: every confident entry-level Greenhouse figure circulating online, and there are several between $5,100 and $9,000 a year, sits below the lowest contract anyone has actually observed. When the estimates all cluster underneath the real floor, distrust the estimates. We work through the full picture in our Greenhouse pricing breakdown, and the band-by-band detail in our Ashby pricing guide.

Does Ashby or Greenhouse screen resumes with AI?

Both do, as of 2026, and this changed recently enough that a lot of comparison content is wrong about it. Greenhouse Talent Matching, part of its Real Talent product, reads resumes and application responses against criteria you define and sorts candidates into five match bands: strong, good, partial, limited, and needs manual review. Ashby AI Assisted Application Review lets you define criteria per job and analyzes inbound applications against them.

The differences are in the constraints rather than the headline capability.

The Ashby credit pool deserves a closer look, because it is the part of the bill you cannot forecast. Application review, candidate fraud detection and AI talent rediscovery all draw from the same allowance: 1,500 credits a month on Foundations, 2,500 per seat per year on Plus, 12,500 per seat per year on Enterprise. Ashby does not publish how many credits a single application review consumes, so you cannot convert any of that into a cost per resume before you buy.

There is an arithmetic trap in those units worth knowing about. Foundations is 1,500 a month account-wide, which is 18,000 a year flat. Plus is 2,500 per seat per year, so a five-seat team upgrading to Plus lands on 12,500 a year, a third fewer credits on a more expensive plan. Break-even is 7.2 seats. Nothing is hidden here, but the unit changes between rows and it is easy to read past.

Metered AI is manageable when volume is predictable, and inbound application volume is the least predictable thing in recruiting. If you are buying either platform with a credit component, it is worth putting real-time budget alerts on the consumption line rather than discovering the overage on the renewal invoice.

Ashby vs Greenhouse for a startup under 100 employees

For most US startups under 100 employees, Ashby is the more sensible purchase, and the reason is not really the price. It is that you can complete the evaluation. You can put a number in a budget on a Tuesday afternoon without booking a call, run the approval, and know what the renewal looks like. Greenhouse requires a sales cycle, commonly three to six weeks, before you learn what anything costs.

Two caveats keep that from being a blanket recommendation. First, Ashby prices on employee headcount, not recruiter seats, so a 90-person company with one recruiter pays the same $900 a month as a 90-person company with six. If your recruiting function is small relative to headcount, per-seat vendors may work out cheaper. Second, the bands are not evenly spaced. Moving from 50 employees to 51 takes the bill from $500 to $700, a 40 percent increase for one hire. A company buying an ATS is usually a company about to cross a band, so model the next one.

Add-ons close some of the gap. Single sign-on is $100 a month on Foundations and included on Plus and Enterprise, which is a 33 percent increase on a $300 base and not optional for most companies with a security review. The AI Notetaker and Advanced Scheduling are paid add-ons on all three plans with no published rate.

Ashby vs Greenhouse and Lever: how the three compare

Lever is the third name that usually comes up, and it is the least transparent of the three. Lever publishes no rates at all, describing pricing as available on request, and sells its Core Platform with add-on modules on top: Candidate Insights, AI Screening by VONQ, and Onboarding. The screening capability is a separate paid add-on rather than something included at a published rate.

Lever is also now owned by Employ Inc., which owns JazzHR and Jobvite as well. That matters less for the product than for the roadmap question: when one company owns three overlapping ATS products, it is fair to ask a salesperson which of them is receiving investment. Our Greenhouse vs Lever vs Workable comparison goes through that three-way decision in detail, and the full field of published rates sits in our ATS pricing comparison.

What Ashby does better, and what Greenhouse does better

Ashby's strongest argument is analytics. It was built around reporting rather than having reporting added later, and it sells a separate Ashby Analytics product that sits on top of whatever ATS you already run, aimed at companies over 100 employees. If your objection to switching is that you do not want to migrate your system of record, that product exists specifically for that objection. Ashby also publishes a price, includes AI application review at its entry tier, and includes fraud detection and talent rediscovery on every plan.

Greenhouse's strongest argument is structured hiring and governance. Interview kits, scorecards, EEOC data management, US standard and custom demographic questions, resume anonymization, audit logging on Pro, a developer sandbox, and one of the largest integration ecosystems in the category. If you are a 900-person company with a compliance function asking who changed which permission and when, Greenhouse has answers that a leaner product does not. That is a real part of what the higher price buys, and pretending otherwise would not help anyone choosing between them.

Both vendors also deserve credit for restraint on the AI. Greenhouse describes Talent Matching as assistive AI rather than automated decision-making and states plainly that it does not advance or reject candidates on its own. That is the right posture, particularly for US employers working under EEOC standards and, in New York City, the bias audit and notice requirements of Local Law 144. Our guide to AI hiring laws by state covers where those obligations apply.

Which should you buy?

Under 100 employees, buy Ashby unless something specific pushes you elsewhere. The pricing is knowable, the AI screening is included at the entry rate, and the analytics are genuinely better than the category average. Over 500 employees with a compliance function and a multi-country footprint, run the Greenhouse process, because the governance features are the thing you are actually buying and they are not a line item you can add later. Between 100 and 500, get both quotes, because Ashby Plus is unpublished too and the comparison becomes quote against quote rather than price against silence.

There is a third answer worth naming, because plenty of teams reach it. If the problem you are trying to solve is that nobody can get through the inbound pile, changing your system of record is an expensive way to fix it. Both of these platforms sell you an ATS and include screening as one feature inside it, metered or gated. A dedicated screening layer reads every inbound application as it arrives, applies your knockout and eligibility rules identically to all of them, and returns the pile ranked with the written evidence behind each placement, at a flat published rate with no credit pool and no headcount band.

Prescreener runs in front of Ashby, Greenhouse, Lever or Workable rather than replacing any of them, so nothing migrates and no data moves. It never auto-rejects: it ranks and flags, and a recruiter makes every decision. If your ATS is fine and your inbound queue is not, that is the cheaper problem to solve. See how AI candidate screening software handles it, or compare us directly on our Ashby alternative and Greenhouse alternative pages.