HR AI Index
Index Talent acquisition AI recruiting assistants › Manatal vs Ashby
AI recruiting assistants · September 2026 Edition

Manatal vs Ashby

Zero of twelve models named Manatal first on the direct prompt; two named Ashby. Manatal was named by ten of the twelve models and Ashby by ten and Manatal carries 19 labels and Ashby 14, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Manatal

accepted challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

Ashby

accepted challenger

Named in seven categories this edition.

First-choice share12%7%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%21%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#4A position in a field of 13; printed, not drawn.
Labels1914A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Manatal reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Workable was named alongside these two in seven of the twelve direct answers. GoPerfect vs Manatal · GoPerfect vs Ashby · Workable vs Manatal

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve 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 twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ManatalFirst choices, of twelve modelsAshby
Direct022 against Ashby
Paraphrase01
Comparative001 against Manatal
Budget-constrained50
Scale-constrained00
Negative001 against Ashby
Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Manatal and Ashby 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
Manatal Ashby first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Manatal on the left and Ashby on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Ashby first, Manatal not the choice

2 of 12 modelsManatal was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Gemini 3.5 FlashAshby alternatives: Findem, Humanly, Juicebox
Mistral SmallAshby alternatives: Greenhouse, TheHireHub.AI, hireEZ

Neither was the first choice, one was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
Grok 4.1 FastWorkable alternatives: Ashby, hireEZ
DeepSeek V4 FlashGreenhouse alternatives: Ashby, Gem, SmartRecruiters, Workable, hireEZ
Qwen 3.7 FlashGem alternatives: Ashby, Autonomy Recruit, Greenhouse, TheHireHub.AI
GLM 4.7 FlashXTheHireHub.AI alternatives: Ashby, Autonomy Recruit, Greenhouse, Workable
MiniMax M2.5TheHireHub.AI alternatives: Ashby, Lever, Workable

Neither was named

5 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5GoPerfect alternatives: Juicebox, Workable
GPT-5.4 miniSeekOut alternatives: Paradox
Perplexity SonarGoPerfect alternatives: Autonomy Recruit, Workable
Llama 4 MaverickAutonomy Recruit alternatives: Humanly, Lever, TheHireHub.AI
Kimi K2Greenhouse alternatives: GoPerfect, Lever, Workable

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
Manatal leads by twenty-five points.
Manatal25%#1 of 9
Ashby0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Manatal leads by five points.
Manatal12%#3 of 13
Ashby7%#4 of 13
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Manatal0%#– of 10
Ashby0%#– of 10
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Manatal

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

“built for SMBs that want one platform instead of a toolchain, though it's not as sophisticated as enterprise platforms” Claude Haiku 4.5 · comparative prompt · soft negative
“I'd suggest starting with Manatal at $19/user/month or Pin if you want to test before committing (free tier)” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“Manatal ($15/user/month) offers the best combination of AI features, affordability, and ease of use” DeepSeek V4 Flash · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about Ashby

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

“Potentially Greenhouse, Lever (by Employ), Ashby (FCRA investigations for AI screening/interviews)” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“Has a learning curve; avoid if your team wants simplicity” Kimi K2 · direct prompt · soft negative
“less "AI recruiter" and more ATS/workflow platforms” Perplexity Sonar · direct prompt · soft negative
“Ideal for startups and mid-market companies needing a unified system for ATS, CRM, scheduling, and analytics.” Mistral Small · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend Ashby if you need a full ATS replacement, or Spark Hire if you already have an ATS” Kimi K2 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
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.