Manatal

Name: Manatal
Brand: Manatal
Rating: 4.5 (342 reviews)

The next generation of AI-powered recruitment software.

Est 2017|Valuation $24.7M|Raised $5.6M

LinkedIn 52K|Website|Web traffic 304K|FTEs 148|HQ Lumphini Subdistrict, Bangkok City, TH

MarketsApplicant Tracking Systems (ATS)

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- Versus Workable: Manatal is positioned as a lower-cost alternative with a higher degree of included functionality at entry tiers. Workable is frequently referenced as a more polished solution for candidate experience and integrations in many deployments, though often at a higher cost. - Versus Bullhorn: Manatal's primary differentiation for many buyers is price transparency and lower per-user cost. Bullhorn typically offers more extensive staffing-specific features and a larger ecosystem of integrations, which can make it preferable for agencies with complex staffing operations. - Versus Zoho Recruit / Recruit CRM / Recruitee: These vendors are commonly considered close alternatives for SMB buyers. Differentiation among them commonly depends on UX preferences, depth of sourcing and search, and integration requirements.

Adoption trends / market presence

The vendor publishes usage metrics and high-level adoption data. Directory listings and third-party vendor lists show Manatal in various vendor rankings; independent market share data were not available in the reviewed materials.

	Manatal	Workable	Bullhorn
Starting Price	Published per-seat pricing available from the vendor	Vendor-published entry-tier pricing varies by packaging and region	Not publicly listed (typically quote-based)
Typical Fit	SMB/mid-market teams seeking combined ATS+CRM at lower cost	Companies seeking a polished ATS with a broader ecosystem (often with higher cost)	Agencies/staffing firms requiring deep staffing workflows and enterprise capabilities
Key Strength	Lower per-user cost relative to many peers; combined ATS and CRM functionality; AI-assisted summaries/enrichment (varied user sentiment)	Mature brand and broader integration options in many cases	Deeper staffing operations features and marketplace integrations in many deployments
Key Weakness	Reported support and verification friction; search/reporting limitations; integration gaps	Pricing can increase with additional features and add-ons	Higher cost and greater implementation complexity

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Versus Workable: Manatal is positioned as a lower-cost alternative with a higher degree of included functionality at entry tiers. Workable is frequently referenced as a more polished solution for candidate experience and integrations in many deployments, though often at a higher cost.
Versus Bullhorn: Manatal's primary differentiation for many buyers is price transparency and lower per-user cost. Bullhorn typically offers more extensive staffing-specific features and a larger ecosystem of integrations, which can make it preferable for agencies with complex staffing operations.
Versus Zoho Recruit / Recruit CRM / Recruitee: These vendors are commonly considered close alternatives for SMB buyers. Differentiation among them commonly depends on UX preferences, depth of sourcing and search, and integration requirements.

Adoption trends / market presence

	Manatal	Workable	Bullhorn
Starting Price	Published per-seat pricing available from the vendor	Vendor-published entry-tier pricing varies by packaging and region	Not publicly listed (typically quote-based)
Typical Fit	SMB/mid-market teams seeking combined ATS+CRM at lower cost	Companies seeking a polished ATS with a broader ecosystem (often with higher cost)	Agencies/staffing firms requiring deep staffing workflows and enterprise capabilities
Key Strength	Lower per-user cost relative to many peers; combined ATS and CRM functionality; AI-assisted summaries/enrichment (varied user sentiment)	Mature brand and broader integration options in many cases	Deeper staffing operations features and marketplace integrations in many deployments
Key Weakness	Reported support and verification friction; search/reporting limitations; integration gaps	Pricing can increase with additional features and add-ons	Higher cost and greater implementation complexity