Screening · Greenhouse pricing
Greenhouse pricing: what Greenhouse ATS costs, what Greenhouse Recruiting publishes, and what buyers actually pay
Greenhouse does not publish a price. Checked on August 23, 2026, greenhouse.com/pricing lists three plans, Core, Plus and Pro, describes what each one is for, and puts a "Get a demo" button under all three. There is no rate anywhere on the page, no per-user figure, no starting-from number, and no free trial offered. If you are trying to build a budget line before you talk to a salesperson, the vendor gives you nothing to work with.
Parse · score · rank · recruiter reviews
Held for recruiter review · never auto-rejected
Screen the pile to watch Prescreener parse every resume, apply your criteria and knockouts, and rank the inbound applicants with a transparent reason on each.
Live, interactive · AI assists, you decide · no signup needed
AI assists · you decide · bias-audited (EEOC / NYC Local Law 144)
Human-in-the-loop you decide
EEOC and LL144 bias-audited
The most reliable public signal we can find comes from Vendr, which negotiates software contracts and publishes aggregate data from deals it has handled. Read on August 23, 2026, its Greenhouse buyer guide reports a median buyer paying $26,611 per year across 868 purchases, with a range from $10,222 at the low end to $75,001 at the high end, and an average saving of 16 percent against the first quote. That is observed contract data rather than an estimate, which makes it the single most useful number on this page.
Here is why that matters more than it sounds. Search Greenhouse pricing and you will find a stack of articles quoting confident entry-level figures: one says it starts around $5,100 a year for small teams, another says $6,500, another puts the entry band at $6,500 to $9,000. Those three estimates disagree with each other by roughly 76 percent for the same plan, and every one of them sits below the $10,222 floor in the largest set of actual observed contracts. When the estimates all cluster underneath the lowest real deal anyone has recorded, the estimates are the thing to distrust.
One more caution about third-party Greenhouse pricing data, including the Vendr figures above. Much of it is keyed to tier names Greenhouse no longer uses. Vendr discusses Essential, Advanced and Expert; the live pricing page sells Core, Plus and Pro. Both are accurate for their moment, but it means a lot of the pricing commentary you will read was written against a packaging structure that has since changed, and feature-to-price mappings from that era may not survive the repackaging.
Why it works
What a published price gets your hiring team
A number without a demo
Our rates are on our pricing page. That matters when a finance approval needs a figure this week and the alternative is a three to six week quote cycle before you learn what anything costs.
Screening priced as screening
Greenhouse charges for a system of record. If what you actually need is the inbound pile read and ranked, you should not have to buy an enterprise ATS contract to get it.
Keep Greenhouse if it works
Structured interview kits, scorecards and reporting are genuine reasons to run Greenhouse. Prescreener sits in front of it rather than replacing it, so nothing migrates.
What it handles
Parsed, scored and ranked on autopilot
Prescreener reads every inbound resume, applies your knockout and eligibility criteria, asks the screening questions you set, scores role-fit against consistent criteria, and ranks the applicant pile so your recruiters review the top matches first.
- Published flat pricing, no discovery call required to see a rate
- Runs alongside Greenhouse rather than replacing your system of record
- Reads 100 percent of inbound applications as they arrive, automatically
- Applies your knockout and eligibility gates identically to every applicant
- Returns the pile ranked, with the written evidence behind each result
- Never auto-rejects: it ranks and flags, and a recruiter decides
- Bias-audited to support EEOC standards and NYC Local Law 144
Why Prescreener
One step that screens the whole inbound pile
Not a full ATS, not a six-figure assessment suite, and not a staffing agency. Parse, score, rank and hand off in one place, shaped to the criteria you already hire on.
Reads every resume
Prescreener parses every inbound application, applies your knockout and eligibility criteria, and asks the screening questions you set. Applicants consent and are told AI is screening their application, so no qualified person sits in a backlog for days.
Scores role-fit consistently
Every applicant is scored against the same criteria, with a transparent reason on each candidate, so the pile is compared consistently and the scoring stays bias-audited to support EEOC standards and NYC Local Law 144.
Ranks the pile
The strongest matches rise to the top of a ranked pile your recruiters review first. Prescreener never auto-rejects, it ranks and flags candidates for review, and your team makes every decision.
In depth
Greenhouse pricing, plan by plan
How much does Greenhouse cost per year?
Greenhouse costs a median of $26,611 per year according to Vendr data covering 868 purchases, with observed contracts ranging from $10,222 to $75,001. Greenhouse itself publishes no rate for any of its three plans. Expect an annual contract, a sales-led purchase, and three to six weeks between requesting a quote and receiving one.
The spread in that range is not noise, it is the pricing model. Greenhouse quotes on company size, hiring volume and which features you need, so a 40-person startup running six requisitions and a 4,000-person enterprise running four hundred are quoted on completely different bases. A single average is close to meaningless here; the useful move is to place yourself in the range by headcount and requisition count before the first call, so you can tell whether the quote you receive is normal.
Vendr also reports an average saving of 16 percent against the initial quote across the deals it handled. Read that as evidence the first number is negotiable rather than as a discount you are owed. Multi-year terms, annual prepayment and case-study participation are the usual levers.
Two cost lines sit outside the subscription and neither is published by Greenhouse. Implementation is commonly cited in third-party articles at $2,000 to $8,000, and sourcing automation is cited at close to $25,000 for ten seats. We could not verify either figure against a Greenhouse source, so treat both as unconfirmed. Ask for both in writing on the first call rather than assuming they are included.
| What you want to know | What Greenhouse publishes | Best available evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Entry-level annual cost | Nothing | Lowest observed contract $10,222 a year (Vendr, 868 purchases) |
| Typical annual cost | Nothing | Median buyer pays $26,611 a year |
| Enterprise annual cost | Nothing | Highest observed contract $75,001 a year |
| Per-user or per-employee rate | Nothing | Not published in any unit; quoted on size, volume and features |
| Discount off first quote | Nothing | Average 16 percent saving on negotiated deals |
| Free trial | None offered | Every plan CTA is "Get a demo" |
| Implementation fee | Nothing | Third-party estimate $2,000 to $8,000, unverified |
| Contract term | Nothing | Annual contracts are the norm in this tier |
Swipe to see the full comparison →
Greenhouse pricing plans: what Core, Plus and Pro include
Greenhouse sells three plans and prices none of them. The plan names changed at the last repackaging, so if you are reading older comparisons that mention Essential, Advanced and Expert, those map roughly onto today's Core, Plus and Pro but the feature boundaries moved. Everything below was read from the live plan comparison on August 23, 2026.
Core is positioned around bringing structure to hiring and is the one most buyers assume is the cheap tier. It is already a substantial product: sourcing and CRM, structured interview kits and scorecards, AI Notetaker, scheduling, reporting and analytics, SSO, and Real Talent Talent Matching. Plus adds operational scale: AI-powered report filters, the Business Intelligence Connector, Greenhouse Sourcing Automation, texting, and Real Talent fraud and spam detection. Pro is the governance tier: unlimited CRM events, enterprise-level data configuration and security, audit log, developer sandbox and sync.
The practical read is that the jump from Core to Plus is about automation and reporting depth, and the jump from Plus to Pro is about compliance, auditability and developer extensibility. If nobody in your organization is asking for an audit log or a sandbox, Pro is unlikely to be worth the premium regardless of what it costs.
Worth noting for US buyers specifically: EEOC data management, US standard and custom demographic questions, and resume anonymization all appear in the feature matrix. Greenhouse has invested seriously in the compliance and structured-hiring side, and that is a legitimate part of what the price buys.
| Plan | Published rate | Positioned for | Notable inclusions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core | Get a demo | Establishing a consistent, repeatable hiring process | Sourcing and CRM, interview kits and scorecards, AI Notetaker, scheduling, reporting, SSO, Real Talent Talent Matching |
| Plus | Get a demo | Adding teams, locations or brands | Everything in Core, plus AI report filters, BI Connector, Sourcing Automation, texting, fraud and spam detection |
| Pro | Get a demo | Regions, business units, advanced governance | Everything in Plus, plus unlimited CRM events, enterprise data security, audit log, developer sandbox and sync |
Swipe to see the full comparison →
Does Greenhouse use AI to screen and rank resumes?
Yes, and this changed. Greenhouse Talent Matching, part of Real Talent, reads resumes and application responses against criteria you define and assigns every applicant a match score in one of five bands: strong match, good match, partial match, limited match, or needs manual review. If you last evaluated Greenhouse when its position was that it would not score candidates for role fit, that is out of date, and we have corrected our own earlier pages accordingly.
The limits are as important as the capability, and Greenhouse documents them clearly. Talent Matching is only available on candidates sitting in the first Application Review stage of your pipeline. It does not run across your inbound flow automatically; a recruiter opens Talent Matching on a specific job to activate scoring. Greenhouse states plainly that it is "assistive AI, not automated-decision-making" and that it "does not automatically advance or reject candidates", with recruiters and hiring managers remaining responsible for every decision. Greenhouse guidance also recommends calibrating on four to six key skills, because match scores are distributed across whichever skills you select.
There is a packaging wrinkle worth raising on your call. The live pricing page lists Real Talent Talent Matching inside the Core plan, while the Greenhouse support documentation describes Talent Matching as requiring the Real Talent add-on on top of a Core, Plus or Pro subscription, with both Talent Matching and resume parsing enabled. Those two statements are not obviously consistent, and no rate is published for Real Talent either way. Ask explicitly whether Talent Matching is included at your plan or quoted separately.
Real Talent is three layers, not one, and only one of them is about suitability. Candidate fraud detection analyzes phone number, email, IP address and location to flag suspicious applications in real time. Identity verification uses CLEAR to confirm applicants are who they say they are. Talent Matching is the layer that evaluates fit. The first two are about authenticity, which is a genuinely valuable and increasingly necessary thing to buy, but it is a different problem from reading the pile.
| Question | Greenhouse Talent Matching | A dedicated screening layer |
|---|---|---|
| Scores applicants for role fit | Yes, five match bands | Yes, with a written reason per candidate |
| Runs automatically on inbound applications | No. Activated per job by a recruiter | Yes, every application as it arrives |
| Pipeline scope | First Application Review stage only | The whole inbound pile |
| Auto-advances or rejects | No, by design | No, ranks and flags for a human decision |
| Published price | None, for the plan or the add-on | Yes, on the pricing page |
| Requires changing your ATS | It is the ATS | No, runs alongside Greenhouse |
Swipe to see the full comparison →
Why do third-party Greenhouse pricing articles disagree so much?
Because there is no public source for them to agree with. When a vendor publishes nothing, every article quoting a precise figure is either reporting a specific quote someone received, aggregating deal data, or estimating. Only the middle one generalizes, and almost none of them say which they are doing.
The disagreement is easy to demonstrate. Among the articles ranking for Greenhouse pricing right now, entry-level annual figures include roughly $5,100, $6,500, and a $6,500 to $9,000 band. Mid-market figures range from $10,000 to $18,000. Enterprise figures start anywhere from $18,000 to $25,000 and run past $70,000. The entry-level estimates alone span about 76 percent, and all of them sit below the $10,222 lowest observed contract in Vendr's data set of 868 purchases. At least one of those two things is wrong, and the observed contracts are the harder evidence.
A second failure mode is staleness. A large share of Greenhouse pricing commentary is written against the Essential, Advanced and Expert tier names, which the vendor no longer sells. An article confidently pricing "Advanced" is describing packaging that has been replaced, so even if its number was right when written, the plan it was attached to no longer exists in that form.
The rule we apply to our own pages: cite a rate only if it was loaded from the vendor pricing page recently, from the country you will buy in, and say plainly when a vendor publishes nothing rather than filling the gap. We have caught this twice in our own verification work, once where a widely repeated figure was quoted in the wrong currency and roughly double the real rate, and once where a pricing page rendered client-side and returned different figures depending on where it was loaded from. An estimate that turns out to be half the real cost is worse than an empty cell, because the finance approval built on it has to be redone.
Greenhouse pricing compared with the platforms that publish a rate
Roughly half this market publishes a rate and roughly half does not, and the split correlates with who they sell to rather than with quality. Self-serve vendors publish because publishing is how they acquire customers. Enterprise vendors quote because the deal is negotiated on headcount, modules, implementation and term.
Rates below were read from each vendor pricing page in August 2026. Where a row says quote only, that is the vendor declining to state a number publicly, not us withholding one.
The comparison that actually decides budgets is the pricing unit rather than the sticker. Greenhouse quotes on company size and hiring volume. Bullhorn and Manatal charge per user, so cost scales with recruiter headcount. BambooHR charges per employee, so cost scales with the whole company whether or not those people touch hiring. Workable charges a flat fee that steps by employee band. Three teams with identical hiring volume land on very different invoices depending which model they walked into.
| Platform | Published rate | Pricing unit | AI resume screening at that rate? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greenhouse | Quote only. Core, Plus and Pro | Company size, volume, features | Talent Matching scores applicants; no rate published |
| Workable | $299 / $599 / $719 per month | Flat, steps by employee band | Screening Assistant included; Agent metered per candidate |
| Manatal | $15 / $35 / $55 per user per month annual | Per user | Yes, AI candidate scoring on all three plans |
| Bullhorn | Starter $99, Core $165 per user per month | Per user | No. Amplify AI starts at the quote-only Pro tier |
| JazzHR | $1,000 / $3,480 / $5,508 per year | Flat annual | AI candidate matching from the Plus plan |
| SmartRecruiters | Essential "Starting at $14,995", rest quote only | Edition | Only from the High Volume edition, which is quote only |
| Lever | Quote only | Quote | AI Screening is a separate paid add-on, powered by VONQ |
| BambooHR | $10 / $17 / $25 per employee per month | Per employee | No native AI resume screening |
Swipe to see the full comparison →
What to ask before you sign a Greenhouse contract
Seven questions, all answerable on the first call, and every one of them is something Greenhouse does not publish.
First, what is the annual rate at our exact headcount and requisition volume, and which plan is that? Second, is Real Talent, and specifically Talent Matching, included at that plan or quoted as an add-on, because the pricing page and the support documentation read differently on this. Third, what is the implementation fee and what does it cover? Fourth, what is the renewal uplift cap, in writing, for the full term. Fifth, what happens to our rate if headcount grows 30 percent mid-term. Sixth, what does sourcing automation cost as a separate line, since it is frequently cited as a large add-on. Seventh, since we hire in the United States, what documentation would we hand a regulator for an NYC Local Law 144 bias audit of Talent Matching?
On that last point, note that Greenhouse having built Talent Matching as assistive AI that never auto-advances or rejects is genuinely helpful to your compliance position, and it is worth having the vendor state it in writing. The employer keeps legal responsibility for a selection procedure regardless of which vendor built the model, so the documentation matters more than the reassurance.
Finally, be clear with yourself about what problem you are buying for. Greenhouse is an excellent system of record with real structured-hiring depth, and teams that need that are right to pay for it. If the actual pain is that four hundred applications arrived and nobody has read them, note that Talent Matching runs on one pipeline stage when a recruiter opens it, and think about whether that shape matches your problem before you price the whole platform against it.
Good questions
Questions about greenhouse pricing
Explore more
More ways hiring teams screen with Prescreener
Applicant tracking system screening
The AI screening layer that ranks your inbound pile alongside your ATS.
Learn moreResume parser
A resume parser that does not stop at fields. It scores and ranks too.
Learn moreCandidate screening software
Screen every candidate on consistent criteria, then review the top matches.
Learn moreStop reading the inbound pile by hand. Put screening on autopilot.
Set your role and criteria and Prescreener parses every inbound resume, scores role-fit, and ranks the pile for your team. Prescreener ranks and flags candidates, your recruiters make every hiring decision.
Consistent criteria · bias-audited to EEOC and LL144 · human-in-the-loop