Lever

Name: Lever
Brand: Lever
Rating: 4.2 (2494 reviews)

Leader

A reading and writing company.

Est 2012|Valuation $550M|Raised $122.8M|83 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 53K|Web traffic 15.7M|FTEs 229|HQ San Francisco, CA

MarketsApplicant Tracking Systems (ATS)Sourcing & Recruitment Marketing Marketing Automation Platforms

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (where alternatives excel)

- Greenhouse: often selected by teams prioritizing highly structured hiring workflows and a large integration ecosystem. Lever is frequently chosen for a combined ATS/CRM and a simpler user experience, while reporting reliability is a common selection factor in comparisons. - iCIMS: commonly viewed as strong in enterprise breadth, with advanced reporting capabilities, though typically with a heavier administrative overhead and a less modern UX than some competitors. - SmartRecruiters: competes in enterprise and high-volume hiring scenarios with a broad suite; pricing can be significant as add-ons scale. - Workable: frequently considered more SMB-accessible with published entry pricing and a simpler deployment model; may be preferable for teams that find enterprise-style packaging and cost excessive.

Adoption and market signals

Press materials describing the Employ portfolio reference large aggregate portfolio metrics such as substantial customer counts and job/candidate volumes post-transaction. These portfolio metrics indicate scale but are not a direct measure of Lever’s standalone market share.

	Lever	Greenhouse	Ashby
Starting Price	Custom quote (not publicly listed)	Custom quote (varies by company size)	Public entry example: hundreds per month for a starter tier
Best suited for	Mid-market teams seeking a unified ATS and CRM with collaboration features and integrations	Teams requiring structured hiring processes and a mature ecosystem	Teams seeking a modern suite with transparent starter pricing and emphasis on reporting/automation
Key Strength	Usability and combined ATS/CRM capabilities; broad integration story; collaboration features	Mature ecosystem, structured workflows, and a large integration marketplace	Pricing transparency at the low end; focus on analytics and automation
Key Weakness	Reported inconsistencies in support and reporting confidence; pricing perceived as high by some reviewers	Can be complex to administer and may require process rigor	May be less established in some legacy enterprise procurement contexts; higher tiers are quote-based

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis (where alternatives excel)

Greenhouse: often selected by teams prioritizing highly structured hiring workflows and a large integration ecosystem. Lever is frequently chosen for a combined ATS/CRM and a simpler user experience, while reporting reliability is a common selection factor in comparisons.
iCIMS: commonly viewed as strong in enterprise breadth, with advanced reporting capabilities, though typically with a heavier administrative overhead and a less modern UX than some competitors.
SmartRecruiters: competes in enterprise and high-volume hiring scenarios with a broad suite; pricing can be significant as add-ons scale.
Workable: frequently considered more SMB-accessible with published entry pricing and a simpler deployment model; may be preferable for teams that find enterprise-style packaging and cost excessive.

Adoption and market signals

	Lever	Greenhouse	Ashby
Starting Price	Custom quote (not publicly listed)	Custom quote (varies by company size)	Public entry example: hundreds per month for a starter tier
Best suited for	Mid-market teams seeking a unified ATS and CRM with collaboration features and integrations	Teams requiring structured hiring processes and a mature ecosystem	Teams seeking a modern suite with transparent starter pricing and emphasis on reporting/automation
Key Strength	Usability and combined ATS/CRM capabilities; broad integration story; collaboration features	Mature ecosystem, structured workflows, and a large integration marketplace	Pricing transparency at the low end; focus on analytics and automation
Key Weakness	Reported inconsistencies in support and reporting confidence; pricing perceived as high by some reviewers	Can be complex to administer and may require process rigor	May be less established in some legacy enterprise procurement contexts; higher tiers are quote-based