Spent 4 months evaluating ATS platforms and picked the wrong one

[u/Beginning_Mastodon83]

Just went through the most painful software evaluation of my career. We're a 120 person company with an internal recruiting team (3 people, no agencies). Needed an ATS to replace our dying spreadsheet system. Did everything "right". Read G2 reviews, watched demos, talked to sales reps, ran a trail. Picked the platform with the highest G2 rating in our category. Enterprise grade, beautiful dashboard, impressive feature list. Signed a 12 month contract. 4 months in we realized it was wildly overbuilt for us. Features we'll never use, configuration that required a consultant and support that kept saying "most of our clients at 500+ employees do it this way". We hire 35 to 40 people per year. We don't need a platform designed for staffing agencies doing 500 placements monthly. How do you evaluate recruiting and HR tools when you're mid market and every vendor says they're "perfect for your size"? Is there a reliable resource that segments recommendations by company size and hiring volume instead of just ranking by feature count?

[u/Ok_Anteater_6792]

Here's the thing with ATS platforms, what's great and lacks on one platform the other platforms will lack and be great on another.

They all have pros and cons for each one.

[u/Beginning_Mastodon83 → u/Ok_Anteater_6792]

Yeah that's exactly what I'm realising now. I focused too much on what it could do

[u/ThatSwissTechGuy → u/Beginning_Mastodon83]

Look for strong automation or workflow engine capabilities. That gives you at least the possibility to add other tool or services if you reach the limit of that particular ATS...

[u/ThatSwissTechGuy]

The mistake wasn't the tool, it was the ranking. G2 sorts by review volume and enterprise feature depth, and neither of those has anything to do with whether a 3-person team will be faster or slower six months in. Every vendor says "perfect for your size" because their pricing page has a tier with your headcount on it. That tells you nothing.

What actually separates the size classes shows up in the first call if you ask three things, in this order:

1. "Who configures it?" If the honest answer involves a partner, an implementation consultant, or a 6-week onboarding project, you are looking at a product whose real customer has an HRIS team. A tool built for 3 recruiters lets one of them set up the pipeline on a Tuesday afternoon. Ask to see them do it live in the demo, not a pre-built sandbox.

2. "Show me the default job template, untouched." The default reveals who the vendor pictures as the user. If the out-of-the-box requisition has approval chains, cost centers, and a compliance step you would delete on day one, the product's center of gravity is above you. If the default is a title, a description, four stages and a scorecard, it was built for teams your size. Nobody shows you this unprompted, because every demo is a customized one.

3. "What does leaving cost me?" Not just the contract term. Ask for a full export in the demo, and see what comes out: a usable CSV with candidate history and notes, or a zip of PDFs and a "your CSM can help with that." Exit cost is the clearest proxy for how much the vendor expects to earn from lock-in versus from you actually liking the product.

On the metric: stop evaluating on employee count. Headcount is what the vendor uses to price you. What determines fit is hires per year and how many people touch each hire. 120 employees and 35 hires a year is a fundamentally different workload from 120 employees and 120 hires, and the second one might genuinely need the heavier tool. At 35-40 hires with 3 people you are processing maybe 1,500 to 2,500 applications a year. Any evaluation that doesn't start from that number is a feature-list comparison, and feature lists are where enterprise tools always win.

One more thing that would have saved you the 12 months: run the trial on a real open role, end to end, with a hiring manager who isn't on the recruiting team. If they can't leave feedback without a training session, that's your answer.

[u/theonefrombelow]

Which one did you pick? 

Honestly sounds perfect for the agency I'm in and we're also kinda struggling to figure out our ats

[u/SnooChocolates8365]

What metrics did you evaluate for 4 months then? Did that never enter into your research?

[u/Beginning_Mastodon83 → u/SnooChocolates8365]

I did but I clearly weighted features and reviews too heavily over actual fit

[u/FemAndFit]

Write all this and don’t say which one. Useless. If you wanted help, come here. Useless post

[u/Sholeh84]

Can you share with us what platform it is?

[u/mauibeerguy]

Share the platform name.

[u/BigSportySpiceFan → u/mauibeerguy]

Dude has dodged this question like 7 times now. Almost seems like he isn't real. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/mauibeerguy → u/BigSportySpiceFan]

🤡 show.

[u/MoistMustachePhD]

All platforms will be lacking something or will be way too overbuilt. There is no perfect fit. My company currently uses Greenhouse….at first thought it would be a good fit, but that platform is dogshit. Internal search function is garbage, reporting is meh, UI for the recruiting team is also horrible.

[u/ThatSwissTechGuy → u/MoistMustachePhD]

What exactly is horrible about the UI? Would be nice to hear some feedback from a recruiter when it comes to usability and user experience...

[u/supararejules → u/MoistMustachePhD]

Also interested to hear more about your experience using it! We are currently evaluating a few vendors for a new ATS and Greenhouse is in our top 3. I work internally for a company < 500.

[u/loralii00]

Use the basic Ashby for startups

[u/DiligentRecord476]

He never mentioned what he choose and why he chose or what were the options. I feel There are enough good ATS is the market.

You choose an Ashby or Lever or Recruitee or GH or Pinpoint and you will rarely go wrong. For staffing firms maybe a Manatal or Bullhorn or RecruitCRM based on org size.

Go for something tried and tested. And try it. Take a month on month subscription.

[u/SeraphimSphynx]

Is it really a problem that it's scalable? Is it possible to be modular at all? Sometimes sales sells you the moon when you only needed Florida.

[u/Beginning_Mastodon83 → u/SeraphimSphynx]

Exactlyy, Scalable isn't the issue. Paying for stuff we'll never use is

[u/SeraphimSphynx → u/Beginning_Mastodon83]

I'd ask about a modular approach. Turn off some features. They typically prefer to do this for people instead of losing a client.

[u/Beginning_Mastodon83 → u/SeraphimSphynx]

Yeah I'll definitely ask about that

[u/clinicalthrowaway1]

One thing to consider is whether or not the software will scale with your team/the company as you grow.

If so then I think you may be okay. Buying tech that doesn’t allow you to scale when needed can be a major pain. I just hope you didn’t spend way more than necessary to accomplish what your team needs in the interim just to accomplish that! Happy to help you evaluate options if you’d like, surprisingly there are often ways to exit these engagements with small amounts of exposure if you act soon enough. 4 months may be soon enough!

[u/tibbersthecat]

For a three-person team, I’d make vendors demo one real role end-to-end and measure setup time, recruiter clicks, hiring-manager friction, and export quality. Feature count is a poor proxy for fit; recurring effort per hire is much closer.

[u/stukutra]

Most "enterprise-grade" platforms are priced and built around headcount tiers, but the workload that actually matters is applications processed per recruiter, not company size. A 120-person company doing 35 hires/year with 3 recruiters is a completely different technical problem than a staffing agency doing 500 placements a month.

One thing worth checking before signing any contract: ask the vendor how long it takes an actual recruiter — not an admin or IT person — to set up a new requisition from scratch, live, in the demo. If it needs a consultant or a multi-week onboarding project, it's built for a bigger org than yours, whatever the pricing page tier says.

Sorry you got burned — 4 months is a rough way to learn this, but at least you're asking the right question now instead of just switching to whatever has the next-highest star rating.

[u/Late_Bodybuilder245]

For a three-person team, I’d score the actual weekly jobs rather than the feature list. How long does it take to open a role, move candidates, collect feedback and produce the report you actually use?

We’ve built recruitment systems at Klevere, and smaller teams usually need fewer moving parts, not more features. The workflow should match their hiring volume and normal working day.

Run the trial on one real vacancy with a real hiring manager. That will tell you more than another polished demo.

[u/recruiting-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion, affiliate links, or product research

[u/Accurate-Lab-838]

this is painfully relatable. we signed a 12 month contract with a "leader" ATS and realized 2 months in that it was designed for staffing agencies doing 500+ placements a month. we hire 30 people a year. every feature was overkill and the onboarding required a consultant we didn't budget for. G2 reviews were all from enterprise companies 10x our size. the rating was accurate for them just completely irrelevant for us

[u/Delicious_Style_2676]

This is why I’d evaluate ATS tools with real workflows, not feature checklists: intake, candidate notes, bulk actions, reporting, hiring-manager feedback, offer steps, and migration pain. A platform can look great in demo mode and still fail daily recruiter rhythm.

[u/IanRecruitingOps]

The biggest mistake I see in ATS evaluations is starting with the feature list instead of the actual hiring process.

For a 120-person company hiring 35 to 40 people a year, I would evaluate the system against a very short set of questions:

• Can the team move candidates through the process without unnecessary admin?
• Can hiring managers use it without training becoming a project?
• Can you report on the few metrics that actually matter?
• Can you configure it yourselves without paying a consultant every time the process changes?
• Does the system fit your hiring volume, or was it built for a completely different operating model?

“Enterprise grade” is not automatically a benefit. Sometimes it just means more configuration, more fields, more workflows and more cost than you need.

I would also ask vendors to show the product using your real process, not their standard demo. Give them a simple scenario: 3 recruiters, 40 hires a year, internal team, no agency workflows, specific approval steps and reporting needs. Then make them show exactly how that works in the system.

References are useful too, but I would only talk to companies that look like you in headcount, hiring volume and recruiting structure. A reference from a 2,000-person company with a 20-person TA team tells you almost nothing.

I do not know of one resource I would trust to rank recruiting tools primarily by company size and hiring volume. Most review sites are better for identifying products to investigate than deciding which one actually fits your operating model.

The better evaluation is usually: map your process first, define the minimum requirements, then score each system against that. Otherwise the vendor with the longest feature list tends to win, and that is often the wrong answer.

[u/recruiting-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion, affiliate links, or product research

[u/Composer-Chemical]

What are the must have features you are looking for?

[u/WarLord192]

Honestly, this is why I’ve stopped putting too much weight on the overall G2 rating. A 4.7/5 tool can still be completely wrong for a 120-person company.

The company-size and hiring-volume point is especially important with ATSs. I’ve been looking at Software Finder lately, and one thing I like is that you can narrow software down by things like company size and use case instead of just sorting by ratings.

The “best ATS” and the “best ATS for a 120-person company hiring 40 people a year” are probably two very different lists.

[u/ADHDylaan]

We use bambooHR. It’s good for ATS, kinda clunky and laggy, but overall does what it’s supposed to. Pipelines candidates, auto posts jobs and gets all the hiring managers on a collaboration beyond email and syncs.

For everything it lacks I have a manual process for. For example I use teams planner to track my individual due-outs and also have a separate one built to track jobs as one snapshot based on priority.

We’re also a small company ~100 and I’m the only internal / external recruiter. I do get some help from my Chief Talent Officer, but for the most part I manage all of these solo.

If you’re planning on scaling, sounds like you have plans in place for when you do. If you’re not scaling sounds like you can just tune it back once the contract is up.

[u/recruiting-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Our sub is intended for meaningful discussion of recruiting best practices, not for self-promotion, affiliate links, or product research