AI Indexes
HR AI Index
Index › Talent acquisition › AI recruiting assistants › Ashby vs Juicebox
AI recruiting assistants · October 2026 Edition

Ashby vs Juicebox

One of fourteen models named Ashby first on the direct prompt; zero named Juicebox. Ashby was named by six of the fourteen models and Juicebox by five and Ashby carries 12 labels and Juicebox 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Ashby

accepted challenger

Named in eight categories this edition.

Juicebox

accepted challenger

Named in four categories this edition.

First-choice share4%2%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels1210A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Ashby reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Greenhouse was named alongside these two in ten of the fourteen direct answers. Manatal vs Ashby · Manatal vs Juicebox · Workable vs Ashby

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the AI recruiting assistants page.

By framing

How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
AshbyFirst choices, of fourteen modelsJuicebox
Direct10
Paraphrase11
Comparative00
Budget-constrained00
Scale-constrained00
Negative002 against Ashby
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.

Every model, every framing

The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Ashby and Juicebox stood in it.
ModelDirectParaphraseComparativeBudget-constrainedScale-constrainedNegative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5
GPT-6 Luna
Muse Glimmer 30B
Ashby Juicebox first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Ashby on the left and Juicebox on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Ashby and Juicebox stood in it.

Ashby first, Juicebox not the choice

1 of 14 modelsJuicebox was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GPT-6 LunaAshby alternatives: Gem, hireEZ

Neither was the first choice, one was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Claude Haiku 4.5GoPerfect alternatives: Ashby, Greenhouse, Manatal, Pin, hireEZ
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem alternatives: Juicebox, Metaview, Moonhub, hireEZ
GLM 4.7 FlashXGreenhouse alternatives: Alex, Ashby, BrightHire, Gem, Humanly, Lever, Manatal
Muse Glimmer 30BGreenhouse, Workable alternatives: Ashby, Gem, GoPerfect, hireEZ

Neither was named

9 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
GPT-5.4 miniGem alternatives: 100Hires, Greenhouse
Perplexity SonarWorkable alternatives: LinkedIn Hiring Assistant, Paradox, SeekOut
Grok 4.1 FastWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever, Manatal, Pin
Mistral SmallWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, SeekOut, hireEZ
DeepSeek V4 FlashGem alternatives: Workable, hireEZ
Llama 4 MaverickGreenhouse alternatives: SeekOut, Workable, hireEZ
Qwen 3.7 FlashWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, SeekOut, hireEZ
Kimi K2Greenhouse, Workable alternatives: Lever, Paradox
MiniMax M2.5Workable alternatives: Greenhouse, Humanly, Lever, SeekOut

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Level: the same share of first choices.
Ashby0%#– of 9
Juicebox0%#6 of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Ashby leads by two points.
Ashby4%#7 of 15
Juicebox2%#8 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Ashby0%#– of 13
Juicebox0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Ashby

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“under investigation for potentially providing consumer reports without adhering to FCRA requirements, alongside Workday, Greenhouse, Lever By Employ, Ashby” Muse Glimmer 30B · negative prompt · soft negative
“Class-action attorneys have launched broad investigations into popular tools like Greenhouse, Lever by Employ, and Ashby.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · negative prompt · soft negative

What the models said about Juicebox

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Two of two in this category shown.

“I'd lean toward Juicebox or HireVue depending on your biggest pain point” MiniMax M2.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“It is highly appreciated by scaling startups and agencies because of its speed and high email sequence reply rates.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · alternative
Also compared

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.