AI Indexes
HR AI Index
Index › Talent acquisition › AI recruiting assistants › Workable vs Humanly
AI recruiting assistants · October 2026 Edition

Workable vs Humanly

Seven of fourteen models named Workable first on the direct prompt; zero named Humanly. Workable was named by fourteen of the fourteen models and Humanly by eight and Workable carries 26 labels and Humanly 10, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Workable

accepted challenger

Named in thirteen categories this edition.

Humanly

accepted challenger

Named in two categories this edition.

First-choice share22%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate4%10%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#6A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels2610A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Workable 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 Workable · Manatal vs Humanly · Workable vs Greenhouse

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.
WorkableFirst choices, of fourteen modelsHumanly
Direct70
Paraphrase32
Comparative00
Budget-constrained101 against Workable · 1 against Humanly
Scale-constrained00
Negative00
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 Workable and Humanly 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
Workable Humanly first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Workable on the left and Humanly on the right.

The direct prompt

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

Workable first, Humanly an alternative

7 of 14 modelsHumanly was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Perplexity SonarWorkable alternatives: LinkedIn Hiring Assistant, Paradox, SeekOut
Grok 4.1 FastWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever, Manatal, Pin
Mistral SmallWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, SeekOut, hireEZ
Qwen 3.7 FlashWorkable alternatives: Greenhouse, SeekOut, hireEZ
Kimi K2Greenhouse, Workable alternatives: Lever, Paradox
MiniMax M2.5Workable alternatives: Greenhouse, Humanly, Lever, SeekOut
Muse Glimmer 30BGreenhouse, Workable alternatives: Ashby, Gem, GoPerfect, hireEZ

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.
DeepSeek V4 FlashGem alternatives: Workable, hireEZ
Llama 4 MaverickGreenhouse alternatives: SeekOut, Workable, hireEZ
GLM 4.7 FlashXGreenhouse alternatives: Alex, Ashby, BrightHire, Gem, Humanly, Lever, Manatal

Neither was named

4 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.
Claude Haiku 4.5GoPerfect alternatives: Ashby, Greenhouse, Manatal, Pin, hireEZ
GPT-5.4 miniGem alternatives: 100Hires, Greenhouse
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem alternatives: Juicebox, Metaview, Moonhub, hireEZ
GPT-6 LunaAshby alternatives: Gem, hireEZ

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
Workable leads by fourteen points.
Workable14%#3 of 9
Humanly0%#– of 9
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Workable leads by eighteen points.
Workable22%#2 of 15
Humanly4%#6 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Workable leads by two points.
Workable2%#– of 13
Humanly0%#– of 13
The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Workable

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

“significantly cheaper than enterprise competitors like Workable (which starts around $299/month)” GLM 4.7 FlashX · budget prompt · soft negative
“All-in-one mid-market pick: Workable – AI-assisted all-in-one ... the most popular all-in-one option at this price tier” Muse Glimmer 30B · direct prompt · first choice

What the models said about Humanly

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

“G2 notes its pricing is better suited to mid-market/enterprise and may be too much for low-volume teams” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · soft negative
“Best for General & GTM Roles (Sales, Marketing, CS): Humanly ... is an excellent choice.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Humanly is the most quoted fit for mid-size teams right now.” Muse Glimmer 30B · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“A conversational screening platform tailored for mid-market and early-career recruitment.” 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.