# Greenhouse vs Lever vs Workable: which ATS is actually better for a mid-market company hiring across multiple departments?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Greenhouse vs Lever vs Workable: which ATS is actually better for a mid-market company hiring across multiple departments? This comparison comes up constantly when teams outgrow their first tool and need something that can handle structured hiring across Engineering, Sales, and Operations simultaneously without turning into a configuration nightmare.</p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">We're exploring how mid-market companies are navigating this decision and what they wish they'd known before committing. What we're hoping to find:</p><ul>
<li>A tool that hiring managers across non-HR departments will actually use</li>
<li>Enough structure to keep multi-department processes consistent without over-engineering</li>
<li>A path from offer to onboarding that doesn't require re-entering everything manually</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">From mid-market reviews in the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/applicant-tracking-systems-ats">Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS)</a> category:</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/greenhouse/reviews"><strong>Greenhouse</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Tops the mid-market grid. Reviewers credit the structured interview plans and scorecard system for creating consistency across departments. One team scaled from 225 to 900 employees in six months using it. The trade-off is configuration depth -- it rewards teams that have someone dedicated to managing it.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/workable/reviews"><strong>Workable</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Consistently described as faster to get running. Mid-market reviewers highlight cleaner hiring manager adoption and simpler setup for teams where speed of launch matters more than deep customization.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/rippling/reviews"><strong>Rippling</strong></a><strong>:</strong> Worth considering for companies that want recruiting, onboarding, payroll, and IT in one connected platform. Reviewers who moved from disconnected systems describe it removing a whole category of administrative work.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">If you've made this decision recently, what ultimately swayed you? And is there anything you'd do differently?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: about 1 month ago
- Author title: Writer
- Net upvotes: 2


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;We went through this exact comparison and landed on Workable because our hiring managers would actually open it without being asked. Greenhouse is clearly more powerful but it rewards having someone dedicated to managing it, and that wasn&#39;t a realistic ask at the time.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: about 1 month ago
- Author title: Marketing Executive





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4