Screenloop

Name: Screenloop
Brand: Screenloop
Rating: 5 (43 reviews)

AI Native

Automate the Mundane, Amplify the Human

Est 2021|Valuation $19.7M|Raised $10.8M|14 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 6K|Web traffic 98K|FTEs 35|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsApplicant Tracking Systems (ATS)Interviewing & Assessment

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Screenloop vs Workable: third-party comparisons indicate Workable may provide more candidate-data customization (custom fields/tags) and broader multilingual career-site support, while Screenloop emphasizes integrated interview intelligence and a streamlined user experience. - Screenloop vs Ashby: Ashby is often cited for reporting and automation depth and may suit operations-heavy TA teams more readily, whereas Screenloop emphasizes faster adoption and interview intelligence integration. - Screenloop vs Greenhouse/Lever: Greenhouse and Lever have longer track records in mid-market and enterprise recruiting, with larger integration marketplaces and mature governance features; they may be preferable for complex enterprise workflows but typically require more extensive implementation.

Adoption trends / market presence

The vendor is very highly rated on G2 with modest review volume, consistent with a newer entrant in the ATS market.
Trade coverage positions the vendor as an emerging UK recruitment-technology vendor.

	Screenloop	Ashby	Workable
Starting Price	Not transparently published on vendor site; a third-party estimate in the hundreds per month when billed annually	Published calculator examples show example outputs in the hundreds per month for a given employee band	Published pricing varies by plan/company size; commonly cited starting figures in the hundreds per month for small teams in public documentation
Best For	Teams seeking an ATS with integrated interview-intelligence features and a streamlined UI	Recruiting teams prioritizing reporting and automation depth; suitable for ops-heavy TA teams	SMB to mid-market teams seeking a widely adopted ATS with a broad feature set and add-on ecosystem
Key Strength	Interview transcription and AI note-taking, scorecard automation, simplified UX, and consolidated modules	Strong analytics and automation capabilities; scales to more complex operations	Mature ecosystem, broad integrations, job posting capabilities, and optional HR expansion tools
Key Weakness	Reported limitations in customization, integrations, and advanced filtering/analytics; less proven at large enterprise scale	Can require more configuration and operational maturity	May become costly or complex as teams scale; some premium features require add-ons

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Screenloop vs Workable: third-party comparisons indicate Workable may provide more candidate-data customization (custom fields/tags) and broader multilingual career-site support, while Screenloop emphasizes integrated interview intelligence and a streamlined user experience.
Screenloop vs Ashby: Ashby is often cited for reporting and automation depth and may suit operations-heavy TA teams more readily, whereas Screenloop emphasizes faster adoption and interview intelligence integration.
Screenloop vs Greenhouse/Lever: Greenhouse and Lever have longer track records in mid-market and enterprise recruiting, with larger integration marketplaces and mature governance features; they may be preferable for complex enterprise workflows but typically require more extensive implementation.

Adoption trends / market presence

The vendor is very highly rated on G2 with modest review volume, consistent with a newer entrant in the ATS market.
Trade coverage positions the vendor as an emerging UK recruitment-technology vendor.

	Screenloop	Ashby	Workable
Starting Price	Not transparently published on vendor site; a third-party estimate in the hundreds per month when billed annually	Published calculator examples show example outputs in the hundreds per month for a given employee band	Published pricing varies by plan/company size; commonly cited starting figures in the hundreds per month for small teams in public documentation
Best For	Teams seeking an ATS with integrated interview-intelligence features and a streamlined UI	Recruiting teams prioritizing reporting and automation depth; suitable for ops-heavy TA teams	SMB to mid-market teams seeking a widely adopted ATS with a broad feature set and add-on ecosystem
Key Strength	Interview transcription and AI note-taking, scorecard automation, simplified UX, and consolidated modules	Strong analytics and automation capabilities; scales to more complex operations	Mature ecosystem, broad integrations, job posting capabilities, and optional HR expansion tools
Key Weakness	Reported limitations in customization, integrations, and advanced filtering/analytics; less proven at large enterprise scale	Can require more configuration and operational maturity	May become costly or complex as teams scale; some premium features require add-ons