Greenhouse

End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
ATS-integratedSourcingScreening

HireAIScore rates Greenhouse 67 out of 100 (grade D, Concerning) under rubric v1.0, last reviewed June 7, 2026. Greenhouse ranks 1 of 77 vendors rated in ATS-integrated AI, against a category average of 47. That score is drawn from 17 evidence items across 7 rubric criteria for Greenhouse — 16 with a cited source, 1 recording that nothing was located.

Score breakdown

Greenhouse, criterion by criterion

Each rubric criterion is scored out of 100 on the cited evidence, then weighted into the total.

Weighted contribution shown to the right of each bar.

  1. Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Weight 20% · avg 51

    78

    +15.6

  2. Bias Audit Transparency

    Weight 18% · avg 41

    86

    +15.5

  3. FRIA Support

    Weight 15% · avg 32

    42

    +6.3

  4. Data Governance Disclosure

    Weight 15% · avg 54

    64

    +9.6

  5. Human Oversight Design

    Weight 12% · avg 57

    66

    +7.9

  6. Post-Market Monitoring

    Weight 12% · avg 42

    58

    +7.0

  7. Customer Documentation

    Weight 8% · avg 59

    64

    +5.1

Total weighted score

67.0(rounded to 67 for display)

Category avg is the mean raw score on that criterion across the 77 ATS-integrated AI vendors in scope of this rubric, this one included.

Strongest criterion

Bias Audit Transparency

86raw / 100

Contributes 15.5 to the total. 86 against a 41 category average.

Weakest criterion

FRIA Support

42raw / 100

Contributes 6.3 to the total. 42 against a 32 category average.

Cited evidence

The evidence behind the score

Every score is backed by at least one cited piece of evidence. Open a criterion to see what was found, when, and where.

Download diligence record

Evidence ledger

Items
17
Documentation
11
Audit report
2
Public statement
3
Absence
1
With a source URL
16 of 17
Source hostnames
4
Fewest items
2
Bias Audit Transparency

These figures measure how thoroughly Greenhouse was reviewed, not how Greenhouse performed — an absence row, recording that nothing was located, is counted like any other item.

Article 11 Technical Documentation

3 items78

Bias Audit Transparency

2 items86

FRIA Support

2 items42

Data Governance Disclosure

2 items64

Human Oversight Design

2 items66

Post-Market Monitoring

3 items58

Customer Documentation

3 items64

Editorial notes

Company overview

Greenhouse Software, founded in 2012 and headquartered in New York City, is one of the most established applicant tracking and structured-hiring platforms. Historically it positioned itself around "structured hiring" and human judgment rather than algorithmic decision-making, and that posture is now codified in a public AI Principles Framework whose fifth pillar states bluntly that "if AI can't explain itself, it doesn't belong in hiring." Its AI feature set - Talent Matching, resume anonymisation, scorecard and email generation, interview "Key takeaways" and offer forecasting - is delivered as decision-support that, per its own documentation, "never automatically advances or rejects candidates."

Regulatory exposure

As an ATS deployed by employers hiring in New York City, Illinois, Colorado, and the EU, Greenhouse's AI features (chiefly Talent Matching) fall within the scope of NYC Local Law 144, the EU AI Act's high-risk Annex III employment use case, and Colorado SB 205. Greenhouse has met this exposure unusually well: it holds ISO/IEC 42001 certification (Schellman, February 2026), publishes monthly independent bias audits by Warden AI mapped to LL 144, EU AI Act, Colorado SB 205, and California FEHA, and documents that it does not use customer personal data to train models and assigns no composite ranking score. The principal residual gap is the absence of an EU AI Act Article 27 FRIA template - a near-universal deployer gap rather than a Greenhouse-specific one.

Path to a higher score

Greenhouse already sits near the top of the field. Incremental gains would come from publishing an explicit Article 27 FRIA template or deployer-obligation checklist; surfacing a downloadable model/system card or technical pack alongside its principles page; continuing the consecutive public Warden audit cadence to cross the multi-year bar; and consolidating its scattered support-article governance docs into a single deployer/compliance hub.

Regulatory frame

What applies to ATS-integrated AI.

Ranking features are inside EU AI Act Annex III §4 (high-risk) and inside NYC Local Law 144 when they affect NYC-based candidates. Customers should treat the AI surface as a distinct deployer-FRIA scope from the rest of the ATS.

Keep reading

All ATS-integrated vendorsHow this score is builtAnnex IV section-by-section: what AI hiring vendors must documentWhat makes a defensible NYC LL 144 bias audit

Compare

Greenhouse against its nearest-scoring peers.

The closest scores in ATS-integrated AI, side by side.

Build any comparison

Ranking

Others rated in ATS-integrated AI

Ranked 1 of 77 by weighted total under rubric v1.0. The ordering is arithmetic on the rubric and carries no view on which tool suits a given hiring process.

  1. #1GreenhouseThis profile67D
  2. #2Eightfold AI64D
  3. #3PageUp64D
All ATS-integrated vendors

Conflicts of interest

No vendor pays for placement, scoring, or removal. Casework - the consulting firm that operates this directory - provides paid services to some vendors. Any active or recent (within 24 months) commercial relationship is disclosed on the affected vendor profile and the review is reassigned to an independent reviewer. See the full policy on About.

Casework has no commercial relationship with this vendor.