Transparency alternatives to Ashby
Other Applicant tracking vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Ashby. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 43 that differ from Ashby on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Ashby has 7 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Ashby” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Ashby | Found at Ashby, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jobvitejobvite.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Jobvite | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| PrimePROprimepro.netSee also Transparency alternatives to PrimePRO | 48/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| JazzHRjazzhr.comSee also Transparency alternatives to JazzHR | 65/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Notice before subprocessors change | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Workableworkable.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Workable | 61/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Bullhornbullhorn.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Bullhorn | 48/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| iCIMSicims.comSee also Transparency alternatives to iCIMS | 39/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Joinjoin.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Join | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| SmartRecruiterssmartrecruiters.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SmartRecruiters | 57/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | nothing | Compare |
| Homerunhomerun.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Homerun | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Leverlever.coSee also Transparency alternatives to Lever | 43/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | Compare |
| Pinpointpinpointhq.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Pinpoint | 26/100 | 2 Subprocessor list, Named privacy contact | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Greenhousegreenhouse.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to Greenhouse | 22/100 | 2 security.txt (RFC 9116), Named privacy contact | 3 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.