HR AI Index
Index › Talent acquisition › Recruitment marketing › Workable vs Jobvite
Recruitment marketing and career sites · September 2026 Edition

Workable vs Jobvite

Three of twelve models named Workable first on the direct prompt; six named Jobvite. Workable was named by eleven of the twelve models and Jobvite by nine and Workable carries 24 labels and Jobvite 16, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Workable

accepted challenger

Named in nine categories this edition.

Jobvite

accepted challenger

Named in five categories this edition.

First-choice share16%14%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate17%6%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#2#3A 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.Teamtailor vs Workable · Teamtailor 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 modelsJobvite
Direct36
Paraphrase50
Comparative00
Budget-constrained001 against Workable
Scale-constrained01
Negative003 against Workable · 1 against Jobvite
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.

The direct prompt

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

Both were the first choice

2 of 12 modelsThe answer named them together, and the judge labeled each a first choice.
Kimi K2Jobvite, Workable alternatives: Beamery, Phenom
MiniMax M2.5Jobvite, Workable alternatives: Gem, Phenom, Teamtailor

Workable first, Jobvite not the choice

1 of 12 modelsJobvite was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
GLM 4.7 FlashXTalentLyft, Workable alternatives: Recruitee

Jobvite first, Workable an alternative

4 of 12 modelsWorkable was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.
Mistral SmallJobvite alternatives: Joveo, Phenom, iCIMS
DeepSeek V4 FlashJobvite alternatives: Beamery, Phenom, Teamtailor, Workable
Llama 4 MaverickJobvite
Qwen 3.7 FlashJobvite alternatives: SmartDreamers, iCIMS

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.
Grok 4.1 FastTeamtailor alternatives: Jobvite, Recruitee, TalentLyft

Neither was named

4 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

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.
Workable0%#9 of 16
Jobvite0%#– of 16
The full small business standing →
Mid-marketThe figures above
Workable leads by two points.
Workable16%#2 of 15
Jobvite14%#3 of 15
The full mid-market standing →
Enterprise
Level: the same share of first choices.
Workable2%#– of 13
Jobvite2%#– 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. 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 Jobvite

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

“Users highlight outdated UI, clunky reporting, high pricing, and migration pains” Grok 4.1 Fast · negative prompt · soft negative
“For most mid-market B2B companies, Jobvite offers the most complete recruitment marketing suite tuned to your size.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
“I recommend prioritizing Teamtailor, Jobvite, or similar mid-market focused suites.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · scale prompt · first choice
“Jobvite is widely considered the best all-around recruitment marketing platform.” Qwen 3.7 Flash · direct prompt · first choice
Also compared
Teamtailor vs WorkableTeamtailor vs JobviteThe full recruitment marketing standing

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