SaaS Ranking
Menu

Lever: what they publish

lever.co · Applicant tracking · checked 2026-10-14

43/100DBand D

Rank 8 of 44 in Applicant tracking, where the median is 17.

Public transparency score, not a product or security rating. Latest check: 2026-10-14. How the score works.

Evidence at a glance

Choose a check to see its source, date and scope.

Not found means not found at the addresses we checked. Not measured means we could not complete the check.

Start a vendor reviewDownload evidence (CSV)

Overview

1 day since the newest dated result, 1 since the oldest. 12 of 12 criteria have a measured result in the last 30 days. Failed checks and undated results are excluded.

Evidence freshness is a statement about our measurement and is kept apart from the transparency score, which is frozen at v1. How good our own measurement is.

Transparency labelsaas-ranking.com

Lever

lever.co · Applicant tracking

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
D 43of 100 Rank 8 of 44

Published commitments4 of 9 found

Measured behaviour1 of 3 found

Checked 2026-10-14. Every line links the page we found it on. A cross means we found nothing at the addresses we checked, not that the vendor has no such document. A transparency score, not a product rating.

Downloads include all checks, source URLs, dates and the snapshot ID for your procurement file. We do not issue badges.

The label is the whole measurement in one object: every criterion with its weight, the band, and the date. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.

Every line in it links the page we found the result on, or lists the addresses we checked. A cross means we found nothing there, not that Lever has no such document.

Where Lever sits in Applicant tracking

  1. A0 0%
  2. B1 2%
  3. C3 7%
  4. D5 11%
  5. E6 14%
  6. F29 66%
44 vendors with a score; 1 more without a score because we could measure too little. Bands have fixed thresholds, see how the score works.

The band of Lever is marked. Vendors without a score are the ones where we could measure too few criteria to rank them – a gap on our side, counted separately.

What Lever states

The exact figures and names we read off the pages linked below, with the sentence they stand in. This is what they publish, not what we verified about their systems.

Gaps, heaviest first

✗

Data processing agreement (DPA)

weight 3 of 3

No data processing agreement found.

Checked 8 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 8 addresses we checked
  1. https://lever.co/legal/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://lever.co/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://lever.co/legal/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://lever.co/data-processing-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://lever.co/legal/data-processing-addendum – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://lever.co/legal/gdpr – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://lever.co/trust/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  8. https://lever.co/privacy/dpa – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data processing agreement in Applicant tracking: 4 of 44 companies

✗

Data location: where they say data is hosted

weight 3 of 3

No statement about data location found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://lever.co/security – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  2. https://lever.co/trust – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://lever.co/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://lever.co/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  5. https://lever.co/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  6. https://lever.co/compliance – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://lever.co/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Data location stated in Applicant tracking: 6 of 45 companies

✗

Public pricing with figures

weight 2 of 3

We found this behind a sign-in, so it is not published openly.

Seen at https://www.lever.co/pricing · checked 2026-10-14

Show the 5 addresses we checked
  1. https://lever.co/pricing – found, but behind a sign-in
  2. https://lever.co/pricing/ – found, but behind a sign-in
  3. https://lever.co/plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://lever.co/en/pricing – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://lever.co/pricing-plans – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Public pricing in Applicant tracking: 20 of 43 companies

✗weight 2 of 3

Third-party requests seen on the first load, before any interaction.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://lever.co/ – third-party requests before any interaction: 659-jst-226.mktoresp.com, app.qualified.com, cdn-cookieyes.com, d.adroll.com, ingest.promptwatch.com, js.qualified.com, log.cookieyes.com, munchkin.marketo.net, pagead2.googlesyndication.com, s.adroll.com, unpkg.com, www.google-analytics.com, www.googletagmanager.com

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: No third-party tracking before consent in Applicant tracking: 0 of 45 companies

✗

Uptime SLA with a figure

weight 1 of 3

No uptime figure found.

Checked 6 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 6 addresses we checked
  1. https://lever.co/legal/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://lever.co/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  3. https://lever.co/legal/service-level-agreement – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  4. https://lever.co/trust/sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://lever.co/uptime – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://lever.co/legal/uptime-sla – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Uptime SLA with a figure in Applicant tracking: 3 of 43 companies

✗

security.txt (RFC 9116)

weight 1 of 3

No security.txt found.

Checked 1 address on 2026-10-14.

Show the 1 address we checked
  1. https://lever.co/.well-known/security.txt – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: security.txt (RFC 9116) in Applicant tracking: 3 of 43 companies

✗

Named privacy contact (DPO or privacy address)

weight 1 of 3

No named privacy contact found.

Checked 7 addresses on 2026-10-14.

Show the 7 addresses we checked
  1. https://lever.co/legal/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  2. https://lever.co/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  3. https://lever.co/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 200)
  4. https://lever.co/legal/privacy-policy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  5. https://lever.co/legal/privacy-notice – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  6. https://lever.co/trust/privacy – reached, no match (HTTP 404)
  7. https://lever.co/datenschutz – reached, no match (HTTP 404)

Is this wrong? Send us the URL

Across the market: Named privacy contact in Applicant tracking: 15 of 45 companies

Evidence

The full source lists sit behind these two groups, so that the answer above stays readable.

Published, with a source 5
✓

Subprocessors: the published list

weight 3 of 3

The actual list is published, not just a promise to keep one.

Source: https://www.employinc.com/sub-processors/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Subprocessor list in Applicant tracking: 9 of 44 companies

✓

Status page with incident history

weight 2 of 3

A public status page with incident history.

Source: https://status.lever.co/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Status page with history in Applicant tracking: 16 of 44 companies

✓

HTTPS enforced with HSTS

weight 2 of 3

HTTP redirects to HTTPS and the HSTS header is set.

  • HSTS max-age 63072000 seconds (730 days).
    Show the exact wording

    max-age=63072000

    Read at https://lever.co/

Source: https://lever.co/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: HTTPS enforced with HSTS in Applicant tracking: 27 of 45 companies

✓

Notice before subprocessors change

weight 2 of 3

The vendor commits publicly to giving notice before the list changes.

Source: https://www.employinc.com/sub-processors/ · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Notice before subprocessors change in Applicant tracking: 7 of 44 companies

✓

Certifications named (SOC 2, ISO 27001)

weight 1 of 3

SOC 2 or ISO 27001 named on a public page.

  • Named on that page ISO/IEC 27001 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), PCI DSS (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 (not counted: the sentence does not carry it), SOC 2 Type II (unclear from the sentence). The sentence we kept does not carry this finding on its own, so it counts in no list and no figure.
    Show the 4 exact wordings

    mploy's security programs and practices have been independently verified against the SOC 2 and ISO 27001 framework.

    Read at https://www.lever.co/security

    security frameworks and best practices from SOC 2, ISO/IEC, Center for Internet Security, NIST and PCI-DSS.

    Read at https://www.lever.co/security

    Employ's security programs and practices have been independently verified against the SOC 2 and ISO 27001 framework.

    Read at https://www.lever.co/security

    Assurance & Privacy Programs SOC 2 Type 2 A Service Organization Report (SOC 2 Type 2 report) is designed to evidence a service provid

    Read at https://www.lever.co/security

Source: https://www.lever.co/security · checked 2026-10-14

Across the market: Certifications named in Applicant tracking: 17 of 45 companies

History

100 0 2026-10-07: 35 of 1002026-10-14: 43 of 100 2026-10-07 2026-10-14
Score over the last 2 runs we measured Lever in: 35 (2026-10-07), 43 (2026-10-14).

Prepare your vendor review

A source is a starting point. Check the product, plan, legal entity and date before treating it as evidence for your purchase. These questions do not change the transparency score.

Lever

5 found · 7 not found · 0 not measured across 12 public checks.

12 of 12 criteria have a measured result from the last 30 days. Oldest dated result: 2026-10-14.

Investigate 7 open evidence questions
  1. Data processing agreement

    Please share the current data processing agreement for the product and plan we are considering, including its annexes and signing process.

    Inspect this check
  2. Data location stated

    Which locations apply to our primary data, backups and support access? Which region can we select for this plan?

    Inspect this check
  3. Public pricing

    Please confirm the total cost for our seats and usage, including minimum commitments, add-ons, overages and renewal terms.

    Inspect this check
  4. Uptime SLA with a figure

    Which availability commitment applies to our plan? Please include the measurement window, exclusions and credit claim process.

    Inspect this check
  5. No third-party tracking before consent

    Which third-party requests occur before a visitor makes a choice, and for what purpose? Please distinguish the public website from the product.

    Inspect this check
  6. security.txt (RFC 9116)

    Where should we report a vulnerability, and what acknowledgement and follow-up process should we expect?

    Inspect this check
  7. Named privacy contact

    Which privacy contact handles requests for our account, and what escalation path should we use?

    Inspect this check

Compare

A shortlist holds up to six vendors across categories and lives entirely in the address of its page: share the link, bookmark it, put it in a ticket. Nothing is stored, so we do not know it exists.

Compared with

Each comparison lists only the criteria where the two differ, with the source for every one. All comparisons.