We tested each platform across six dimensions that matter most to small hiring teams:
- Setup speed — How fast can a non-technical hiring manager go from signup to a live job?
- Candidate experience — Mobile-friendly? Resume parsing? Minimal steps? No account creation required?
- Automation depth — Does the platform actually reduce manual work, or just organize it?
- Integration quality — Does it connect to your job boards and HR tools with real sync, or just links?
- Pricing transparency — Can you find the price without a sales call? Are there surprises at scale?
- Scalability — Will this still work when you're hiring for 10 roles instead of 2?
We also factored in what real users say on Reddit, G2, and Capterra — not just vendor marketing. Where we had access to free trials, we tested the full workflow: posting a job, receiving an application, reviewing candidates, and moving them through stages.
A note on this list: Truffle is our product. We've included it with honest limitations — including what it doesn't do — alongside competitors. We've also noted where competitors beat us on specific dimensions.
| Platform | Best for | Pricing | Setup time | Key strength | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BreezyHR | Simple hiring pipelines for SMBs | Free tier available; paid from ~$157/mo | 30–60 min | Drag-and-drop pipeline with solid job board distribution | Reporting customization is limited; some integration gaps |
| Homerun | Employer branding and visual career pages | From ~€79/mo | 30–60 min | Best-in-class career page builder | Basic analytics; no mobile app |
| Truffle | Fast first-round screening without phone screens | $99/mo annual, $129/mo monthly. Unlimited users | 10–15 min | AI-assisted async screening with transcripts, talent assessments, summaries, match scores with reasoning, and Candidate Shorts | Not a full ATS — focused on screening, not end-to-end tracking |
| JazzHR | Structured workflows for growing teams | From ~$75/mo | 1–2 hours | Multi-board posting with customizable hiring stages | Basic reporting; LinkedIn integration has rough edges |
| Lever | Mid-sized teams needing sourcing + tracking | Quote-based; mid-market pricing | 1–2 weeks | Built-in sourcing and scheduling in a recruiter-friendly UI | Steeper learning curve; reporting still maturing |
| Greenhouse | Analytics-driven teams ready to invest | Quote-based; enterprise pricing | 2–4 weeks | Strongest structured hiring and feedback workflows | Higher cost; customization constraints; often overkill for small teams |
Evaluation scorecard
We rated each platform 1–5 across our six dimensions. These reflect our hands-on evaluation — not vendor claims.
| Platform | Setup speed | Candidate experience | Automation depth | Integration quality | Pricing transparency | Scalability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BreezyHR | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 — Free tier; paid tiers published | 3 |
| Homerun | 4 | 5 — Best career pages in this list | 2 | 2 | 4 — Published pricing | 2 |
| Truffle | 5 — Live in 10 min | 4 — Mobile, no downloads, async | 4 — AI transcripts, summaries, match scores | 3 — Native + Zapier/API; expanding | 5 — Published, flat-rate, no sales call | 2 — Screening only, not full ATS |
| JazzHR | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 — Published tiers | 3 |
| Lever | 2 — Requires onboarding | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 — Quote-based | 5 |
| Greenhouse | 2 — Requires onboarding | 4 | 4 | 5 — Deepest integration ecosystem | 1 — Quote-based, enterprise pricing | 5 |
A score of 5 means the platform excels for small business buyers on that dimension. A low score doesn't mean the tool is bad — it may just be built for a different buyer.
Detailed reviews
1. BreezyHR — Best for simple hiring pipelines
What it does well: BreezyHR gives small teams a clean, drag-and-drop pipeline for managing candidates through hiring stages. Job board integrations (Indeed, LinkedIn, ZipRecruiter) expand your reach without extra effort, and automated email sequences and interview scheduling handle the repetitive work.
In our testing, the interface was immediately intuitive — a hiring manager could post a job and start reviewing candidates within an hour without training. The visual pipeline makes it easy to see where every candidate stands at a glance.
Where it falls short: Reporting is functional but not deeply customizable. If you need detailed analytics on sourcing effectiveness or time-to-hire breakdowns, you'll hit limits. Users on Reddit and G2 also flag integration challenges with ADP and LinkedIn Recruiter — the connections exist but don't always sync cleanly.
Who should pick BreezyHR: Teams that want a straightforward, visual ATS without complexity. If your hiring process is simple (post jobs → receive applications → review → interview → hire) and you don't need advanced analytics, BreezyHR handles the workflow well at a reasonable price.
Who shouldn't: Teams that rely on deep reporting or need tight integration with enterprise HR tools.
2. Homerun — Best for employer branding and career pages
What it does well: Homerun's career page builder is the best in this list — and it's not close. If your employer brand matters (and for small businesses competing against bigger companies for talent, it should), Homerun lets you create visually appealing, on-brand job pages without a designer. The hiring pipeline is clean and easy to use, with Slack integration for team coordination.
Setup is fast, and the candidate-facing experience is polished. For companies where the application itself is part of the brand impression, Homerun delivers.
Where it falls short: Analytics are basic. If you want to track where your best candidates come from, measure time-to-hire by role, or run conversion reports across your pipeline, Homerun won't satisfy. There's no dedicated mobile app, which matters if your hiring team reviews candidates on the go. LinkedIn integration is weaker than competitors.
Who should pick Homerun: Small teams where employer branding and candidate experience are the top priority — creative agencies, startups, DTC brands, and anyone competing for talent against bigger companies with better name recognition.
Who shouldn't: Data-driven hiring teams that need analytics to optimize their process. Teams doing high-volume hiring where branding matters less than processing speed.
3. Truffle — Best for fast first-round screening
What it does well: Truffle is an AI-powered candidate screening platform that replaces the phone screen bottleneck. Instead of scheduling and sitting through 30-minute calls to find out someone can't work weekends, you send candidates a link. They record answers to structured questions on their own time. AI generates transcripts, summaries, and match scores with reasoning — plus 30-second Candidate Shorts that pull key interview moments into a highlight reel with explanations for why each clip was selected. Full recordings are always available.
In our testing (yes, we tested our own product the same way we tested competitors), a hiring manager went from job description to live screening link in under 15 minutes, and could review a completed candidate — transcript, summary, match score, and Candidate Short — in roughly 2 minutes. For teams screening 30, 50, or 100+ applicants per role, that's the difference between spending 15 hours on phone screens and spending 30 minutes reviewing AI-ranked results.
The AI analyzes what candidates say (transcript-based only) — no facial analysis, no biometrics, no tone scoring. Every match score includes reasoning so you can evaluate whether the AI's assessment makes sense for your role. You review and make every decision.
Where it falls short: Truffle is a screening platform, not a full ATS. It doesn't manage your entire hiring pipeline, post to job boards, or track candidates from application to offer. It's focused specifically on first-round screening — replacing phone screens with structured async video powered by AI. If you need end-to-end applicant tracking, you'll pair Truffle with a traditional ATS (it integrates via native connectors and Zapier).
No live interviewing. No candidate sourcing. If your bottleneck is something other than screening high volumes of applicants, Truffle doesn't solve it.
Who should pick Truffle: Growing teams (30-200 employees) with consistent hiring volume — HR generalists and ops leads screening 25-100+ applicants per role across multiple open positions. Customer support, sales, healthcare, operations, franchise hiring, seasonal spikes. Any role where you're buried in applicants and phone screens are eating your week. At $99/month with unlimited jobs and all AI features included, it undercuts mid-market competitors by 60-80% while offering genuine screening intelligence that budget tools don't have.
Who shouldn't: Solo founders hiring one role with 5 applicants — you don't need AI for that. Teams that need a full ATS for end-to-end pipeline management. Roles where live conversation is essential from the first touchpoint (executive hiring, highly specialized positions).
→ hiretruffle.com
4. JazzHR — Best for structured workflows on a budget
What it does well: JazzHR offers multi-board job posting and customizable hiring workflows at a price point that works for small businesses. You can define stages, set up structured evaluation, and track candidates in real-time without the cost or complexity of Lever or Greenhouse.
Implementation is fast — most teams are up and running within a few hours. The interface is clean enough that hiring managers without recruiting experience can navigate it without training.
Where it falls short: Reporting is the consistent weak spot. Users on G2 and Reddit flag limited customization — you can see basic metrics, but building detailed reports on sourcing effectiveness or pipeline conversion takes workarounds. LinkedIn Recruiter integration exists but has rough edges (candidate profiles don't always transfer cleanly). Some automated messaging features don't work as expected, particularly SMS workflows.
Who should pick JazzHR: Growing small businesses that need more structure than a spreadsheet but less complexity (and cost) than Lever or Greenhouse. Teams hiring for 3–10 roles at a time who want defined stages and multi-board posting.
Who shouldn't: Teams that rely on detailed hiring analytics or need smooth LinkedIn Recruiter integration.
5. Lever — Best for mid-sized teams that need sourcing and tracking in one tool
What it does well: Lever combines ATS functionality with built-in sourcing and scheduling tools in a single recruiter-friendly interface. For mid-sized teams that want to source, track, and schedule without juggling multiple tools, Lever consolidates the workflow. The candidate management UX is strong — recruiters consistently praise how easy it is to move candidates through stages, schedule interviews, and collaborate with hiring managers.
Implementation support is notably good. Lever invests in onboarding, which matters for teams adopting their first real ATS.
Where it falls short: Lever is mid-market, not SMB. The pricing is quote-based (no published pricing), setup takes 1–2 weeks with onboarding, and the learning curve is steeper than self-serve tools. Reporting is improving but still basic compared to Greenhouse. AI features and mobile capabilities are still maturing.
Who should pick Lever: Mid-sized teams (20–200 employees) with dedicated recruiting capacity who want sourcing and ATS in one platform. Teams growing out of JazzHR or BreezyHR and ready for more sophisticated workflows.
Who shouldn't: Small teams on tight budgets who need to be up and running today. Teams that want published pricing before engaging with sales. Solo hiring managers who need simplicity over depth.
→ lever.co
6. Greenhouse — Best for analytics-driven hiring teams
What it does well: Greenhouse has the deepest structured hiring workflows and integration ecosystem in this list. Feedback loops, scorecards, calibrated evaluation, and workflow automation make it the tool of choice for teams that want every hiring decision backed by structured data. The integration list is extensive — Workday, BambooHR, background check providers, video interview tools, and more.
For teams that care about consistent evaluation across interviewers and roles, Greenhouse's scorecard and feedback system is the gold standard in this category.
Where it falls short: It's expensive and complex. Quote-based pricing with enterprise packaging means you won't know the cost without a sales conversation, and some features require additional investment. Setup takes 2–4 weeks with onboarding. Customization, despite the depth of features, has constraints — users on G2 note that global settings and workflow configurations don't always offer the flexibility they expect at this price point.
For small businesses, Greenhouse is often more than you need. The structured hiring methodology is excellent, but the overhead to implement and maintain it can outweigh the benefit for teams hiring a few roles at a time.
Who should pick Greenhouse: Growing companies (50+ employees) with TA teams that want structured, data-driven hiring. Organizations where consistent evaluation across many interviewers and roles justifies the investment. Teams ready to commit to implementation and ongoing configuration.
Who shouldn't: Small businesses under 50 employees. Teams that need to hire this week, not next month. Budget-conscious buyers who want pricing transparency.
How to choose: Match your situation to a platform
Instead of comparing every feature, start from your hiring challenge.
"We just need something simple. Our current process is email and spreadsheets."
Go with BreezyHR or JazzHR. Both give you a structured pipeline, job board posting, and basic automation without a learning curve. BreezyHR if you prefer visual, drag-and-drop simplicity. JazzHR if you want more customizable workflow stages at a lower price point.
"We're a small team and our biggest problem is phone screens eating our week."
Go with Truffle (paired with your existing ATS or even a spreadsheet). If the bottleneck is specifically first-round screening — too many candidates, too much scheduling, too many 30-minute calls that go nowhere — Truffle solves that specific problem faster than a traditional ATS. It doesn't replace your ATS; it replaces the phone screen.
"Our employer brand needs to compete with bigger companies."
Go with Homerun. The career page builder is genuinely differentiated. If your careers page is the first impression candidates have of your company, Homerun makes that impression professional and on-brand without requiring a designer.
"We're growing and need sourcing + tracking in one platform."
Go with Lever. When you're ready for a mid-market ATS with built-in sourcing, scheduling, and collaboration tools. The investment in onboarding pays off if you're hiring consistently across multiple roles.
"We need structured evaluation and analytics to make better hiring decisions."
Go with Greenhouse. If your team has the budget, implementation capacity, and commitment to structured hiring methodology, Greenhouse provides the deepest feedback and analytics workflows. Just know what you're signing up for — this is a serious platform investment, not a plug-and-play tool.
"We need a combination — quick screening AND pipeline management."
Pair Truffle with BreezyHR or JazzHR. Use Truffle for first-round async screening (transcripts, summaries, match scores), then move shortlisted candidates into your ATS for pipeline management through interviews and offers. Truffle integrates via native connectors, Zapier, and API.
What to avoid in an ATS
Before you buy, watch for these red flags:
- Forcing candidates to create accounts to apply. This kills completion rates. If your ATS requires candidates to register before submitting an application, you're losing good applicants — especially for hourly and high-volume roles where candidates have options.
- No resume parsing. If candidates have to manually re-enter every detail from their resume into form fields, your ATS is creating work instead of eliminating it. Modern platforms parse resumes automatically.
- Outdated UI that hasn't been updated in years. If the interface looks like 2012, the underlying architecture probably matches. Your hiring team won't use a tool that frustrates them, and candidates will judge your company by the application experience.
- Enterprise pricing and complexity for SMB needs. Platforms like Taleo, ADP recruiting modules, and enterprise-tier ATS systems are built for large organizations with dedicated TA teams and compliance infrastructure. If you're a 20-person company, you're paying for capabilities you'll never use and dealing with implementation overhead that doesn't match your scale.
- "Integrates with everything" without specifics. Ask which job boards, which HR tools, and whether the integration is real-time sync or a pasted link. Vague integration claims usually mean manual work.
Frequently asked questions
Most commonly asked questions about small business applicant tracking software.
Do small businesses actually need an ATS?
If you're hiring more than a few people a year, yes. The alternative — email threads, spreadsheets, sticky notes — breaks down fast when you're managing multiple candidates across multiple roles. An ATS gives you a single place to track every applicant, automate communication, and keep your team aligned. The key is choosing one built for your scale, not paying for enterprise features you'll never touch.
How much does an ATS cost for a small business?
Self-serve SMB tools range from free (BreezyHR's free tier) to ~$99–$200/month for full features. Mid-market platforms like Lever and Greenhouse are quote-based and typically start in the thousands per year. Truffle is $99/month (annual) with unlimited users — but it's focused on screening, not full ATS functionality. The biggest cost variable: per-user pricing vs. flat-rate. If hiring managers and interviewers count as "users," per-user models get expensive fast.
What's the difference between an ATS and a CRM?
An ATS manages active candidates through your hiring pipeline — applications, screening, interviews, offers. A CRM (candidate relationship management) system manages relationships with potential candidates over time, including people who aren't actively applying. Small businesses typically need an ATS first. CRM becomes valuable when you're building talent pools and doing proactive sourcing for hard-to-fill roles.
Can I use Truffle as my ATS?
Truffle is built for first-round screening, not end-to-end applicant tracking. It handles async video interviews, AI-generated transcripts, talent assessments, summaries, and match scores — replacing the phone screen step. For full pipeline management (job posting, candidate tracking through stages, offer management), pair Truffle with a traditional ATS like BreezyHR or JazzHR. They integrate via native connectors, Zapier, and API.
What ATS integrations matter most?
For small businesses: job board posting (Indeed, LinkedIn, ZipRecruiter), calendar sync for interview scheduling, and email/communication automation. If you're using a screening tool like Truffle, verify that candidate results (transcripts, scores, summaries) write back to structured fields in your ATS — not just a pasted note. If you're on a specific HR platform (Gusto, Rippling, BambooHR), check for native integration before you commit.
How do I migrate from spreadsheets to an ATS?
Start with one active role. Post it through the ATS, route all applications through the platform, and run the full workflow (review → screen → interview → decision) before migrating historical data. Most ATS platforms support CSV imports for existing candidate data, but the real migration is your team's behavior — getting everyone to use the system consistently matters more than importing old spreadsheets.
Which ATS is best for high-volume hiring?
For high-volume first-round screening: Truffle handles the candidate review bottleneck with async video, AI summaries, and match scores at a flat rate that doesn't penalize volume. For high-volume pipeline management: BreezyHR and JazzHR handle multi-role tracking with automation. For enterprise-scale high volume: Greenhouse and Lever have the workflow depth and integration ecosystems, but at higher cost and implementation overhead.
Further resources
- G2 ATS Software Reviews — Verified user reviews across platforms
- Capterra ATS Comparison — Side-by-side feature comparison and user ratings
- SHRM Talent Acquisition Resources — Industry guidance on hiring best practices
This guide is published by Truffle. We've included our product alongside competitors with honest tradeoffs — including where Truffle falls short and where competitors beat us. Evaluations are based on our hands-on testing of free trials and demos, Reddit and G2 user feedback, and publicly available product documentation as of Q1 2026. Ratings reflect our assessment; other evaluators may weigh dimensions differently. Verify pricing and capabilities directly with vendors before purchasing.
The TL;DR
We tested each platform across six dimensions that matter most to small hiring teams:
- Setup speed — How fast can a non-technical hiring manager go from signup to a live job?
- Candidate experience — Mobile-friendly? Resume parsing? Minimal steps? No account creation required?
- Automation depth — Does the platform actually reduce manual work, or just organize it?
- Integration quality — Does it connect to your job boards and HR tools with real sync, or just links?
- Pricing transparency — Can you find the price without a sales call? Are there surprises at scale?
- Scalability — Will this still work when you're hiring for 10 roles instead of 2?
We also factored in what real users say on Reddit, G2, and Capterra — not just vendor marketing. Where we had access to free trials, we tested the full workflow: posting a job, receiving an application, reviewing candidates, and moving them through stages.
A note on this list: Truffle is our product. We've included it with honest limitations — including what it doesn't do — alongside competitors. We've also noted where competitors beat us on specific dimensions.
| Platform | Best for | Pricing | Setup time | Key strength | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BreezyHR | Simple hiring pipelines for SMBs | Free tier available; paid from ~$157/mo | 30–60 min | Drag-and-drop pipeline with solid job board distribution | Reporting customization is limited; some integration gaps |
| Homerun | Employer branding and visual career pages | From ~€79/mo | 30–60 min | Best-in-class career page builder | Basic analytics; no mobile app |
| Truffle | Fast first-round screening without phone screens | $99/mo annual, $129/mo monthly. Unlimited users | 10–15 min | AI-assisted async screening with transcripts, talent assessments, summaries, match scores with reasoning, and Candidate Shorts | Not a full ATS — focused on screening, not end-to-end tracking |
| JazzHR | Structured workflows for growing teams | From ~$75/mo | 1–2 hours | Multi-board posting with customizable hiring stages | Basic reporting; LinkedIn integration has rough edges |
| Lever | Mid-sized teams needing sourcing + tracking | Quote-based; mid-market pricing | 1–2 weeks | Built-in sourcing and scheduling in a recruiter-friendly UI | Steeper learning curve; reporting still maturing |
| Greenhouse | Analytics-driven teams ready to invest | Quote-based; enterprise pricing | 2–4 weeks | Strongest structured hiring and feedback workflows | Higher cost; customization constraints; often overkill for small teams |
Evaluation scorecard
We rated each platform 1–5 across our six dimensions. These reflect our hands-on evaluation — not vendor claims.
| Platform | Setup speed | Candidate experience | Automation depth | Integration quality | Pricing transparency | Scalability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BreezyHR | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 — Free tier; paid tiers published | 3 |
| Homerun | 4 | 5 — Best career pages in this list | 2 | 2 | 4 — Published pricing | 2 |
| Truffle | 5 — Live in 10 min | 4 — Mobile, no downloads, async | 4 — AI transcripts, summaries, match scores | 3 — Native + Zapier/API; expanding | 5 — Published, flat-rate, no sales call | 2 — Screening only, not full ATS |
| JazzHR | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 — Published tiers | 3 |
| Lever | 2 — Requires onboarding | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 — Quote-based | 5 |
| Greenhouse | 2 — Requires onboarding | 4 | 4 | 5 — Deepest integration ecosystem | 1 — Quote-based, enterprise pricing | 5 |
A score of 5 means the platform excels for small business buyers on that dimension. A low score doesn't mean the tool is bad — it may just be built for a different buyer.
Detailed reviews
1. BreezyHR — Best for simple hiring pipelines
What it does well: BreezyHR gives small teams a clean, drag-and-drop pipeline for managing candidates through hiring stages. Job board integrations (Indeed, LinkedIn, ZipRecruiter) expand your reach without extra effort, and automated email sequences and interview scheduling handle the repetitive work.
In our testing, the interface was immediately intuitive — a hiring manager could post a job and start reviewing candidates within an hour without training. The visual pipeline makes it easy to see where every candidate stands at a glance.
Where it falls short: Reporting is functional but not deeply customizable. If you need detailed analytics on sourcing effectiveness or time-to-hire breakdowns, you'll hit limits. Users on Reddit and G2 also flag integration challenges with ADP and LinkedIn Recruiter — the connections exist but don't always sync cleanly.
Who should pick BreezyHR: Teams that want a straightforward, visual ATS without complexity. If your hiring process is simple (post jobs → receive applications → review → interview → hire) and you don't need advanced analytics, BreezyHR handles the workflow well at a reasonable price.
Who shouldn't: Teams that rely on deep reporting or need tight integration with enterprise HR tools.
2. Homerun — Best for employer branding and career pages
What it does well: Homerun's career page builder is the best in this list — and it's not close. If your employer brand matters (and for small businesses competing against bigger companies for talent, it should), Homerun lets you create visually appealing, on-brand job pages without a designer. The hiring pipeline is clean and easy to use, with Slack integration for team coordination.
Setup is fast, and the candidate-facing experience is polished. For companies where the application itself is part of the brand impression, Homerun delivers.
Where it falls short: Analytics are basic. If you want to track where your best candidates come from, measure time-to-hire by role, or run conversion reports across your pipeline, Homerun won't satisfy. There's no dedicated mobile app, which matters if your hiring team reviews candidates on the go. LinkedIn integration is weaker than competitors.
Who should pick Homerun: Small teams where employer branding and candidate experience are the top priority — creative agencies, startups, DTC brands, and anyone competing for talent against bigger companies with better name recognition.
Who shouldn't: Data-driven hiring teams that need analytics to optimize their process. Teams doing high-volume hiring where branding matters less than processing speed.
3. Truffle — Best for fast first-round screening
What it does well: Truffle is an AI-powered candidate screening platform that replaces the phone screen bottleneck. Instead of scheduling and sitting through 30-minute calls to find out someone can't work weekends, you send candidates a link. They record answers to structured questions on their own time. AI generates transcripts, summaries, and match scores with reasoning — plus 30-second Candidate Shorts that pull key interview moments into a highlight reel with explanations for why each clip was selected. Full recordings are always available.
In our testing (yes, we tested our own product the same way we tested competitors), a hiring manager went from job description to live screening link in under 15 minutes, and could review a completed candidate — transcript, summary, match score, and Candidate Short — in roughly 2 minutes. For teams screening 30, 50, or 100+ applicants per role, that's the difference between spending 15 hours on phone screens and spending 30 minutes reviewing AI-ranked results.
The AI analyzes what candidates say (transcript-based only) — no facial analysis, no biometrics, no tone scoring. Every match score includes reasoning so you can evaluate whether the AI's assessment makes sense for your role. You review and make every decision.
Where it falls short: Truffle is a screening platform, not a full ATS. It doesn't manage your entire hiring pipeline, post to job boards, or track candidates from application to offer. It's focused specifically on first-round screening — replacing phone screens with structured async video powered by AI. If you need end-to-end applicant tracking, you'll pair Truffle with a traditional ATS (it integrates via native connectors and Zapier).
No live interviewing. No candidate sourcing. If your bottleneck is something other than screening high volumes of applicants, Truffle doesn't solve it.
Who should pick Truffle: Growing teams (30-200 employees) with consistent hiring volume — HR generalists and ops leads screening 25-100+ applicants per role across multiple open positions. Customer support, sales, healthcare, operations, franchise hiring, seasonal spikes. Any role where you're buried in applicants and phone screens are eating your week. At $99/month with unlimited jobs and all AI features included, it undercuts mid-market competitors by 60-80% while offering genuine screening intelligence that budget tools don't have.
Who shouldn't: Solo founders hiring one role with 5 applicants — you don't need AI for that. Teams that need a full ATS for end-to-end pipeline management. Roles where live conversation is essential from the first touchpoint (executive hiring, highly specialized positions).
→ hiretruffle.com
4. JazzHR — Best for structured workflows on a budget
What it does well: JazzHR offers multi-board job posting and customizable hiring workflows at a price point that works for small businesses. You can define stages, set up structured evaluation, and track candidates in real-time without the cost or complexity of Lever or Greenhouse.
Implementation is fast — most teams are up and running within a few hours. The interface is clean enough that hiring managers without recruiting experience can navigate it without training.
Where it falls short: Reporting is the consistent weak spot. Users on G2 and Reddit flag limited customization — you can see basic metrics, but building detailed reports on sourcing effectiveness or pipeline conversion takes workarounds. LinkedIn Recruiter integration exists but has rough edges (candidate profiles don't always transfer cleanly). Some automated messaging features don't work as expected, particularly SMS workflows.
Who should pick JazzHR: Growing small businesses that need more structure than a spreadsheet but less complexity (and cost) than Lever or Greenhouse. Teams hiring for 3–10 roles at a time who want defined stages and multi-board posting.
Who shouldn't: Teams that rely on detailed hiring analytics or need smooth LinkedIn Recruiter integration.
5. Lever — Best for mid-sized teams that need sourcing and tracking in one tool
What it does well: Lever combines ATS functionality with built-in sourcing and scheduling tools in a single recruiter-friendly interface. For mid-sized teams that want to source, track, and schedule without juggling multiple tools, Lever consolidates the workflow. The candidate management UX is strong — recruiters consistently praise how easy it is to move candidates through stages, schedule interviews, and collaborate with hiring managers.
Implementation support is notably good. Lever invests in onboarding, which matters for teams adopting their first real ATS.
Where it falls short: Lever is mid-market, not SMB. The pricing is quote-based (no published pricing), setup takes 1–2 weeks with onboarding, and the learning curve is steeper than self-serve tools. Reporting is improving but still basic compared to Greenhouse. AI features and mobile capabilities are still maturing.
Who should pick Lever: Mid-sized teams (20–200 employees) with dedicated recruiting capacity who want sourcing and ATS in one platform. Teams growing out of JazzHR or BreezyHR and ready for more sophisticated workflows.
Who shouldn't: Small teams on tight budgets who need to be up and running today. Teams that want published pricing before engaging with sales. Solo hiring managers who need simplicity over depth.
→ lever.co
6. Greenhouse — Best for analytics-driven hiring teams
What it does well: Greenhouse has the deepest structured hiring workflows and integration ecosystem in this list. Feedback loops, scorecards, calibrated evaluation, and workflow automation make it the tool of choice for teams that want every hiring decision backed by structured data. The integration list is extensive — Workday, BambooHR, background check providers, video interview tools, and more.
For teams that care about consistent evaluation across interviewers and roles, Greenhouse's scorecard and feedback system is the gold standard in this category.
Where it falls short: It's expensive and complex. Quote-based pricing with enterprise packaging means you won't know the cost without a sales conversation, and some features require additional investment. Setup takes 2–4 weeks with onboarding. Customization, despite the depth of features, has constraints — users on G2 note that global settings and workflow configurations don't always offer the flexibility they expect at this price point.
For small businesses, Greenhouse is often more than you need. The structured hiring methodology is excellent, but the overhead to implement and maintain it can outweigh the benefit for teams hiring a few roles at a time.
Who should pick Greenhouse: Growing companies (50+ employees) with TA teams that want structured, data-driven hiring. Organizations where consistent evaluation across many interviewers and roles justifies the investment. Teams ready to commit to implementation and ongoing configuration.
Who shouldn't: Small businesses under 50 employees. Teams that need to hire this week, not next month. Budget-conscious buyers who want pricing transparency.
How to choose: Match your situation to a platform
Instead of comparing every feature, start from your hiring challenge.
"We just need something simple. Our current process is email and spreadsheets."
Go with BreezyHR or JazzHR. Both give you a structured pipeline, job board posting, and basic automation without a learning curve. BreezyHR if you prefer visual, drag-and-drop simplicity. JazzHR if you want more customizable workflow stages at a lower price point.
"We're a small team and our biggest problem is phone screens eating our week."
Go with Truffle (paired with your existing ATS or even a spreadsheet). If the bottleneck is specifically first-round screening — too many candidates, too much scheduling, too many 30-minute calls that go nowhere — Truffle solves that specific problem faster than a traditional ATS. It doesn't replace your ATS; it replaces the phone screen.
"Our employer brand needs to compete with bigger companies."
Go with Homerun. The career page builder is genuinely differentiated. If your careers page is the first impression candidates have of your company, Homerun makes that impression professional and on-brand without requiring a designer.
"We're growing and need sourcing + tracking in one platform."
Go with Lever. When you're ready for a mid-market ATS with built-in sourcing, scheduling, and collaboration tools. The investment in onboarding pays off if you're hiring consistently across multiple roles.
"We need structured evaluation and analytics to make better hiring decisions."
Go with Greenhouse. If your team has the budget, implementation capacity, and commitment to structured hiring methodology, Greenhouse provides the deepest feedback and analytics workflows. Just know what you're signing up for — this is a serious platform investment, not a plug-and-play tool.
"We need a combination — quick screening AND pipeline management."
Pair Truffle with BreezyHR or JazzHR. Use Truffle for first-round async screening (transcripts, summaries, match scores), then move shortlisted candidates into your ATS for pipeline management through interviews and offers. Truffle integrates via native connectors, Zapier, and API.
What to avoid in an ATS
Before you buy, watch for these red flags:
- Forcing candidates to create accounts to apply. This kills completion rates. If your ATS requires candidates to register before submitting an application, you're losing good applicants — especially for hourly and high-volume roles where candidates have options.
- No resume parsing. If candidates have to manually re-enter every detail from their resume into form fields, your ATS is creating work instead of eliminating it. Modern platforms parse resumes automatically.
- Outdated UI that hasn't been updated in years. If the interface looks like 2012, the underlying architecture probably matches. Your hiring team won't use a tool that frustrates them, and candidates will judge your company by the application experience.
- Enterprise pricing and complexity for SMB needs. Platforms like Taleo, ADP recruiting modules, and enterprise-tier ATS systems are built for large organizations with dedicated TA teams and compliance infrastructure. If you're a 20-person company, you're paying for capabilities you'll never use and dealing with implementation overhead that doesn't match your scale.
- "Integrates with everything" without specifics. Ask which job boards, which HR tools, and whether the integration is real-time sync or a pasted link. Vague integration claims usually mean manual work.
Frequently asked questions
Most commonly asked questions about small business applicant tracking software.
Do small businesses actually need an ATS?
If you're hiring more than a few people a year, yes. The alternative — email threads, spreadsheets, sticky notes — breaks down fast when you're managing multiple candidates across multiple roles. An ATS gives you a single place to track every applicant, automate communication, and keep your team aligned. The key is choosing one built for your scale, not paying for enterprise features you'll never touch.
How much does an ATS cost for a small business?
Self-serve SMB tools range from free (BreezyHR's free tier) to ~$99–$200/month for full features. Mid-market platforms like Lever and Greenhouse are quote-based and typically start in the thousands per year. Truffle is $99/month (annual) with unlimited users — but it's focused on screening, not full ATS functionality. The biggest cost variable: per-user pricing vs. flat-rate. If hiring managers and interviewers count as "users," per-user models get expensive fast.
What's the difference between an ATS and a CRM?
An ATS manages active candidates through your hiring pipeline — applications, screening, interviews, offers. A CRM (candidate relationship management) system manages relationships with potential candidates over time, including people who aren't actively applying. Small businesses typically need an ATS first. CRM becomes valuable when you're building talent pools and doing proactive sourcing for hard-to-fill roles.
Can I use Truffle as my ATS?
Truffle is built for first-round screening, not end-to-end applicant tracking. It handles async video interviews, AI-generated transcripts, talent assessments, summaries, and match scores — replacing the phone screen step. For full pipeline management (job posting, candidate tracking through stages, offer management), pair Truffle with a traditional ATS like BreezyHR or JazzHR. They integrate via native connectors, Zapier, and API.
What ATS integrations matter most?
For small businesses: job board posting (Indeed, LinkedIn, ZipRecruiter), calendar sync for interview scheduling, and email/communication automation. If you're using a screening tool like Truffle, verify that candidate results (transcripts, scores, summaries) write back to structured fields in your ATS — not just a pasted note. If you're on a specific HR platform (Gusto, Rippling, BambooHR), check for native integration before you commit.
How do I migrate from spreadsheets to an ATS?
Start with one active role. Post it through the ATS, route all applications through the platform, and run the full workflow (review → screen → interview → decision) before migrating historical data. Most ATS platforms support CSV imports for existing candidate data, but the real migration is your team's behavior — getting everyone to use the system consistently matters more than importing old spreadsheets.
Which ATS is best for high-volume hiring?
For high-volume first-round screening: Truffle handles the candidate review bottleneck with async video, AI summaries, and match scores at a flat rate that doesn't penalize volume. For high-volume pipeline management: BreezyHR and JazzHR handle multi-role tracking with automation. For enterprise-scale high volume: Greenhouse and Lever have the workflow depth and integration ecosystems, but at higher cost and implementation overhead.
Further resources
- G2 ATS Software Reviews — Verified user reviews across platforms
- Capterra ATS Comparison — Side-by-side feature comparison and user ratings
- SHRM Talent Acquisition Resources — Industry guidance on hiring best practices
This guide is published by Truffle. We've included our product alongside competitors with honest tradeoffs — including where Truffle falls short and where competitors beat us. Evaluations are based on our hands-on testing of free trials and demos, Reddit and G2 user feedback, and publicly available product documentation as of Q1 2026. Ratings reflect our assessment; other evaluators may weigh dimensions differently. Verify pricing and capabilities directly with vendors before purchasing.
Try Truffle instead.
