Recruitment marketing and career sites · September 2026 Edition
Workable vs 100Hires
Three of twelve models named Workable first on the direct prompt; zero named 100Hires. Workable was named by eleven of the twelve models and 100Hires by eleven and Workable carries 24 labels and 100Hires 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in nine categories this edition.
Named in four categories this edition.
First-choice share16%6%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#2#4A position in a field of 15; printed, not drawn.
Labels2416A 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.Jobvite was named alongside these two in seven of the twelve direct answers. Teamtailor vs Workable · Teamtailor vs 100Hires · Workable vs Jobvite
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 recruitment marketing and career sites page.
By framing
How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
WorkableFirst choices, of twelve models100Hires
Direct30
Paraphrase50
Comparative00
Budget-constrained031 against Workable
Scale-constrained00
Negative003 against Workable
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 Workable and 100Hires stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | | | | |
Workable 100Hires first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Workable on the left and 100Hires on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Workable and 100Hires stood in it.
Workable first, 100Hires not the choice
3 of 12 models100Hires was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.Kimi K2Jobvite, Workable alternatives: Beamery, Phenom
GLM 4.7 FlashXTalentLyft, Workable alternatives: Recruitee
MiniMax M2.5Jobvite, Workable alternatives: Gem, Phenom, Teamtailor
Neither was the first choice, one was named
1 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.DeepSeek V4 FlashJobvite alternatives: Beamery, Phenom, Teamtailor, Workable
Neither was named
8 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5SmartDreamers alternatives: Greenhouse, Jobilla, LinkedIn Talent Solutions, Loxo
GPT-5.4 miniPhenom alternatives: Beamery, Joveo, Radancy
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem alternatives: Lever, Teamtailor
Perplexity SonarPhenom alternatives: SmartDreamers, Teamtailor
Grok 4.1 FastTeamtailor alternatives: Jobvite, Recruitee, TalentLyft
Mistral SmallJobvite alternatives: Joveo, Phenom, iCIMS
Llama 4 MaverickJobvite
Qwen 3.7 FlashJobvite alternatives: SmartDreamers, iCIMS
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
100Hires leads by twenty points.
100Hires20%#1 of 16Workable0%#9 of 16Mid-marketThe figures above
The order flips: Workable leads at mid-market.
Workable16%#2 of 15100Hires6%#4 of 15Enterprise
100Hires is not named for this buyer.
Workable2%#– of 13100Hires—not namedWhat the models said about Workable
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Four of four in this category shown.
“Avoid for tight budgets: Workable ($299+/month)” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · hard negative
“Be Cautious With ... Users report billing disputes, inflexible features, slow support, and integration failures” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“I'd recommend Workable as the default choice because it delivers a polished, branded careers page right out of the box” GLM 4.7 FlashX · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“Workable is a battle-tested ATS with a careers page that is best for mid-market companies (50–500 employees)” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice
What the models said about 100Hires
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“100Hires - Specifically designed for teams on tight budgets, offering job posting, email campaigns, and candidate tracking in a lean, easy-to-implement platform.” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
“For most limited budgets: Start with 100Hires at $49/month – it offers the most comprehensive feature set at the lowest price point” Kimi K2 · budget prompt · first choice
“Recommendation: Start with 100Hires if you need to automate posting to social media to fill seats quickly.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · budget prompt · first choice
Also compared
Teamtailor vs WorkableTeamtailor vs 100HiresWorkable vs JobviteWorkable vs PhenomWorkable vs GreenhouseWorkable vs TalentLyftWorkable vs LinkedIn Talent SolutionsJobvite vs 100Hires100Hires vs Phenom100Hires vs Greenhouse100Hires vs TalentLyft100Hires vs LinkedIn Talent SolutionsAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full recruitment marketing standing
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.