See who hires, how the process works, what contracts really mean, and where the public evidence stops.
Research snapshot
August 2026
Every platform publishes time-to-shortlist for employers. Almost none publishes time-to-rejection for candidates.
How we mark the gaps →Compare vetting stages, contract type, pay transparency, benefits, rejection communication, and what happens after placement.
Separate sourcing, screening, employment infrastructure, payroll, and managed delivery before comparing vendors.
Many providers overlap categories. Their primary job still determines what you pay for and what you must manage.
Use when sourcing and screening quality are the bottleneck. You usually employ the hire directly.
Best for focused roles and a lower interview burden.Use when your team can define roles, assess candidates, and manage the hiring process.
Best for control and lower starting cost.Use after you find the person and need compliant contracts, payroll, taxes, or benefits.
Best for employment infrastructure, not sourcing.Use when you need an accountable team or technical outcome rather than an individual hire.
Best for scoped execution and team capacity.Templated rejection reports; references included in vetting.
Strong reports of outcome communication and cross-endorsement.
Six to seven stages; two to three references before presentation.
Behavioral, role-simulation, and culture-fit screening reported.
Work test reported; process details remain limited.
AI interview and background check; optional insurance, no PTO in published cost table.
We separate verified facts, third-party reports, company claims, and pending research.
Read the methodology →