The cost is reasonable for what it includes. The dashboard and the functionality of the ATS and CRM were very easy to use. It integrates well with job posting sites and internal programs such as Slack.

We were long-time users of SuccessFactors but wanted a more affordable alternative that still met our talent acquisition needs. As a large, global company with a sizable talent acquisition team, we needed a reputable ATS. We were looking for a solution that was easy to use and offered strong customer support.

Lever stood out due to its excellent training materials compared to other ATS/HRIS platforms. It provided both an ATS and a CRM, which was beneficial. It also offered strong reporting capabilities and supported both candidate and job workflows.

There is no mobile app that I am aware of. The CRM component for passive candidates felt slightly outdated. The search parameters for sourcing candidates were not very strong.

Lever includes more features than many of its competitors in the ATS space. It can be used by mid-sized and large companies and tailored to specific needs and budgets. I still slightly prefer SuccessFactors because, with an in-house IT specialist, we could better adjust it for recruiting and automating communications.

Consider what you want from your ATS. Decide if a CRM/ATS combination is necessary for your team. The cost may be high for small to midsized companies.

System integration has improved over time. Lever consistently releases high-quality training materials for users.

Lever is well-suited for midsized or large enterprises, including global organizations.

It is very user-friendly. The interface is intuitive and easy on the eyes, with a clean and organized layout. Even hiring managers can navigate it with minimal guidance.

Another benefit is that the ATS is fluid and customizable, seamlessly reflecting the hiring process. You can easily update candidate information, upload documents, and edit candidate names without issues.

Lever also integrates very well with LinkedIn, minimizing redundancy in sourcing efforts. This is one of my top preferred systems.

I have only worked with this client for a year. I believe they have used this system for at least four years as their main ATS and candidate database. The organization likely chose this tool to manage a large volume of applicants efficiently.

It provides a centralized platform for tracking applicants, managing workflows, and ensuring timely communication. From what I’ve seen, the system supports the end-to-end recruitment process effectively.

Once the system and workflows are set up, changes can be difficult. For example, this client forgot to include a status for when HR sends candidates for review, such as "HM Review," so we currently use alternatives like "Intro Session" or "Phone Interview," depending on the team.

Data is not readily available for export and analysis; while there are functions, the landing page only shows status updates on recent or newly opened roles.

Integration with Outlook is not seamless. I’ve seen other ATS platforms with smoother email integration that allow full email functionality within the system—Lever, or at least this client’s version, does not.

The interface and integrations stand out. This tool is easier to learn quickly compared to others I’ve used. Lever effectively supports the recruitment process by helping to manage candidates, track progress, and apply appropriate tagging.

The LinkedIn integration is among the best I’ve encountered. I also like how candidates are directed to apply through the client’s website in a clear and straightforward way.

I think Lever is quite expensive, but the value is there—especially if your organization heavily uses LinkedIn. It’s critical to establish a solid process when setting up workflows to reflect the actual hiring process. Doing this properly helps hiring managers participate more actively in screening and feedback. Planning the workflow in advance can prevent limitations later.

I haven’t worked with this client long, and so far, the Lever functions I started with have remained the same a year later.

A large organization (1,000+ employees) with active hiring manager involvement and one that uses LinkedIn as a primary sourcing platform will benefit greatly from Lever.

• Ease of Startup: We implemented the essential features quickly and can scale as we grow.
• Integrations: It integrates with LinkedIn Recruiter, Indeed, and Hubspot—three essential tools in our workflow.
• Structured Interview Process: With a geographically dispersed and largely remote workforce, this feature ensures consistent interview quality and helps capture cultural considerations, supporting fairness and preparedness.

The company was bringing all People functions in-house and needed a tool for talent acquisition. The basic requirements were to post jobs, build a candidate pool, and generate offers. Lever provided this functionality without high costs or a lengthy implementation timeline.

We were also attracted to its additional integrations and reporting features, which could scale as the company’s needs evolved. Many of our other software tools offer integration support with Lever.

• Customization: While customization is possible, the associated services significantly increase costs, which is not ideal for smaller, budget-constrained companies.
• API Fee Cost: Integration costs are high compared to other providers.
• Onboarding: The onboarding workflow features are limited, requiring us to supplement with manual processes. We hope this will be resolved in the future.

Lever includes the core features common to many applicant tracking systems—job postings, candidate applications, and interview management. It stands out for its resume parsing, email templates, and DEI capabilities. It falls short in onboarding features and affordability compared to some other tools.

The top three criteria to consider when evaluating Lever are:

• Candidate management—what data you need to collect and the expected volume.
• Integration—what other tools you want to connect with this platform.
• Scalability—how affordable and complex it will be to expand the tool’s features as your organization grows.

We began using Lever in 2020 and have not seen major new product enhancements since then. However, the quality and stability of existing features have improved.

Lever is suitable for organizations of any size.

Lever has strong functionality for posting jobs. Its candidate tracking and communication features are excellent when used properly. It includes role-based data access control, which is very helpful for larger teams.

My client was already using Lever when I was contracted to help improve some of their HR processes and review compliance. The company operates nationwide with six regions, over 30 satellite offices, and thousands of employees. The goal was to standardize tools across all regions. Many, but not all, were using Lever for recruiting. I worked with the tool as part of my engagement to assess its implementation and effectiveness.

I found the reporting to be limited, though I am unsure whether this was due to Lever or the client’s setup. The interface can be difficult to navigate and could be more user-friendly. It lacked integration with the existing HRIS, resulting in additional manual work for recruiters.

Lever is better than some platforms but not as strong as others. The pricing is excellent for the level of functionality it provides.

Anyone considering Lever should ask whether it integrates with your HRIS, background check providers, and onboarding tools. It is also important to check if it integrates with your calendar and email systems. Finally, confirm that the cost aligns with your budget and overall recruitment needs.

I believe it has, but I’m not sure.

Lever is suitable for businesses with multiple hiring managers and multiple interviews per hire. It works best for higher recruiting volumes, but may not be ideal for large enterprises. It is especially useful for small recruiting teams that need support managing candidates.

• I liked the ability to see our recruiting data quickly for each open position.
• I liked having a seamless way to track information—recruiters, hiring managers, and candidates were all on the same page when using Lever.
• I liked how user-friendly it was. Whenever we needed to train a new team member, it was easy for them to get started.

The organization I worked for managed Lever on behalf of a client. The client was looking for a user-friendly ATS that displayed data efficiently, which Lever provided. The client had previously managed the recruiting process manually, so Lever offered a significant improvement. They appreciated the customization Lever made available. It streamlined their process and made managing recruitment much easier.

• I would have liked more flexibility in Lever's reporting and analytics. A dashboard for quick viewing would be helpful.
• Lever's sourcing tools were very basic. I wished it included tools for quickly contacting candidates.
• I would have liked a way to engage candidates passively. If a candidate wasn't a fit for a role, the only way to organize them was to reject them; there wasn’t a way to store them in folders for future positions.

Compared to Greenhouse, Lever does offer less customization.

Companies should consider their business needs and whether the tool meets them. Too often, a company implements an ATS that doesn't allow for customization of their processes.

Lever has improved its user interface to make it more user-friendly.

Lever is great for organizations with high-volume recruitment.

• Lever’s modern and intuitive interface makes it easy to learn and use.
• The email templates and automation tools help save time and streamline communication.
• The collaborative hiring features make it simple to share feedback and coordinate across the entire team.

We chose Lever because we needed a way to track candidates across multiple positions. We also needed a solution for managing interviews, screening candidates, and organizing the hiring process. This tool allows us to efficiently hire candidates and transition them into employees.

Lever stood out due to its user-friendly interface, automation tools, and pricing. I have personally used Lever for about a year.

• Lever’s pricing can be expensive for smaller teams.
• The reporting features are not as customizable as I would prefer.
• Some of the more complex integrations are not as seamless or practical.

Lever stands out for its ease of use and strong collaboration features. Greenhouse, for example, offers more advanced customization and reporting capabilities but has a steeper learning curve. Workday Recruiting is better suited for large enterprises with complex HR needs. Lever is a great choice for mid-sized companies.

Consider your company’s employee count. Evaluate how many hires you make per month and per week. Determine which automation tools you need. Review the integrations required to ensure compatibility with your existing systems.

Over time, the automation features have expanded, along with the number of available integrations.

Lever is a great fit for mid-sized to large companies that need a collaborative hiring process.

• It is easy to use for recruiters, hiring managers, and interviewers.
• It offers strong cost performance when you don't need too many advanced features.
• The customizable workflows and reporting helped reduce administrative work for our small recruiting team.

We needed an applicant tracking system that managers would find user-friendly. Our main requirements were affordability, the ability to post jobs to our site, a streamlined process for moving candidates through hiring stages, offer letter generation, and integration with our HR system.

Lever is one of the best ATS options for organizations that need hiring managers to participate in sourcing, resume reviews, and candidate progression. For a tool that non-recruiters don't use frequently, it remains intuitive and easy to navigate. I have administered and used Lever for two years and also used it several years ago at a different company.

• Some reporting features became confusing after they changed reporting tools.
• It can be too expensive for smaller companies or those with low hiring volume.
• Integration with HRIS systems is limited depending on the provider.

Lever is easier to set up and use than many other ATS platforms. It falls in the mid-to-top range in terms of pricing and features. The interface is also more visually appealing compared to both more expensive and lower-cost alternatives.

Think about both your immediate hiring needs and what you might require in the next year. Since switching ATS platforms can be costly, ensure you have the budget and a long-term need for the tool over at least the next three years.

Consider not just how recruiters will use it but also how hiring managers and interviewers will engage with the system. Including them in demos after narrowing your options to two or three tools can help with decision-making.

I have only noticed subtle changes in the system between when I used it in 2017 and again in 2021. The good thing is that Lever remains reliable and includes all the essential features we needed.

Lever is ideal for organizations with steady hiring needs where managers play an active role in the recruiting process. Company size is less important than ensuring the budget aligns with its value.

I like the easy book links that allow you to create self-booking links for candidates. The simple resume review interface and workflow will enable you to save a rejection reason and use it until you select a new one. And then perhaps the ease of creating email templates would be another perk.

It was the first ATS for our company. We considered it in the first place due to pricing and the size of the company; we were a start-up and did not need a massive ATS. I have used it for about 3 years now.

It's not very customizable; you have to email support to have them customize your rejection reasons. With the different levels, you get other reporting options. The base level does not include many built-in reports, so you must export data for analysis. Lack of luster support: we never had any check-ins with our rep, and it was impossible to get a quick reply from the help center there.

It was inexpensive for us at the time compared to all the other quotes we got. It is very user-friendly, quick, and straightforward. The only drawback of that, then, is the customization.

How long will it suit your needs? How much hiring do you plan to do? Does it integrate with your other tools and systems? What is the yearly increase and cost per user increase?

I have not seen much change with Lever recently.

I would say it is best for a small organization. It is less complex than Greenhouse, so it could be suitable for a company looking to get something set up for a small team or self-sufficient managers.

• Lever's interface is clean, intuitive, and easy to use.
• It's very collaborative and allows you to tag hiring managers and recruiters, and write notes around resumes and candidates for quick highlights.
• It has robust reporting capabilities to get the reports and metrics showing how well your team is doing, or where the funnel is catching for a job.

We were originally doing and organizing interviews via Excel and Google Docs, and were getting to a point where that was not the best solution. Initially, we utilized Lever as our main ATS to build out more optimized interviewing and recruiting processes. I've personally used it at 2 separate companies for a total of about 2.5 years. The key benefits it provides are the easy-to-use interface, the customizability of the user interface for applications, the easy-to-use screening tools and notes section, the privacy settings, and the affordability. It's an affordable ATS that helps you organize, understand recruiting metrics, and recruit easily.

• Lever’s integration options with third-party HRISs were not great, specifically with Paylocity or Rippling. It would be nice to see a more robust integration in which candidates would only have to input important contact information once throughout the whole process.
• Technical bugs/issues would happen specifically with the scheduling tool, so manual back and forth was usually the most reliable way to set the scheduling. It would be nice for them to partner with a great scheduling vendor.
• Lack of customizability. There wasn't a lot you could do around customizing the look and logo of job boards and such, it was very minimal. It would be nice to be able to customize a bit more.

Overall, Lever is definitely high up there. I would rate it second to Greenhouse. It's a much more affordable option with similar functionalities. Lever is the best for an up and coming start-up that values collaboration and has multiple people working on roles.

• Budget - Your budget is definitely important in making the decision. Lever is probably the best choice in the affordability category.
• Integrations - It's important to think about what you want your ATS to integrate into ( Usually an HRIS or payroll system). Lever may not integrate with all, so it is definitely important to take a look to make sure that it does.
• Reporting - Know what metrics are important to your team and org. Lever can help build the reports you need.
• Customization - If you want to customize the look of your job boards, you'll have very limited customization. but for the price, it's not too shabby!

Their customer service wait times have gotten significantly better. Also their user interface and usability evolves pretty quickly.

If your requisition load for roles does not exceed 50, Lever is a great fit. Most companies probably won't hit 50 until down the road. Until then, it's a great tool!

1. The tool is incredibly user-friendly and is optimized for collaboration and communication, both internally and externally.

2. It has an intuitive dashboard that makes it easy to manage and track applicants’ progress throughout the recruitment process.

3. The tool has powerful filters and search capabilities, making it easy to qualify job seekers quickly and accurately.

4. Lever has many automation capabilities, including interview scheduling, email campaigns, and even candidate sourcing.

We chose Lever because of its user-friendly interface. It has the ability to easily track, maintain, and analyze all hiring data. The different tools also help streamline the entire hiring process. Lever's reporting capabilities also provide insight into sourcing efforts. This enables us to identify areas for improvement. The archive tool is also great for keeping a pool of talent.

1. Price, may not be affordable for every company.

2. Many tools are useless for a very small business.

3. The interface might look boring to some people.

It is more user-friendly. Everything is tracked in the same place. The system begins to become intuitive as the project goes on. It integrates with other platforms, such as LinkedIn.

1. Do you need all of the tools? 2. Will you be hiring continuously, or only for a few roles?

Yes - the interface became more user-friendly, and it becomes more intuitive as it "learns" about the types of candidates you approve.

Corporation or large recruiting agency

• The ability to manage collaborative hiring with ease. This has reduced the need for email communications, and Slack messages with constant back and forth.
• The Lever UI is quite user-friendly, it is easy to use which makes it easy to introduce the platform to hiring managers and new recruiters with minimum training.
• The ability to integrate your calendar and availability of interviewers into Lever has allowed us to save a lot of time and effort in scheduling interviews with applicants. This reduces the efforts needed to schedule multiple rounds of interviews and also helps us with candidate communications which was a concern in the past.
• We are also able to get data driven reports which help us understand how we are doing on each job and make any updates as needed to ensure we are using processes which are effective.

Our team was growing and we were in a situation where we had to automate our recruitment process within the organization. We had many jobs open and various hiring managers, so managing it with spreadsheets and documents was getting difficult. The organization's time to close roles was too long as well.

After reviewing many ATS, we decided on Lever. We chose Lever because it had many customizations that would be useful to make sure we were able to make the ATS customized to the needs of our hiring managers, our collaborators, and our applicants.

We also felt that integrations Lever offers such as Zoom and Slack were an advantage as our organization was already using these applications within the organizations. We can use Zoom to schedule interviews and we use Slack to collaborate with candidates as well which is terrific. Personally, I have been using personally for over 3 years.

• While Lever has a great UI, sometimes for users who never have used an ATS, it can take a little time to learn how to use it, and the training available to us was pretty much online only.
• Support can be limited and slow on occasion, where we need to wait for a response via email which can sometimes cause delays
• The cost of the ATS is good only for larger teams, I think for small businesses the price of Lever may be higher than the benefits it brings especially if working with smaller budgets.

Lever's level of customization with workflows is better than many ATS that I have used in the past like Jazz and Bamboo which has helped us customize the platform to our organization's needs.

Lever's scheduling system with integrated calendars and the ability to send calendar invites is a huge plus which many ats do not have.

Lever's level of candidate communications is similar to most ATS, but I do like how quickly an email or message can be sent to a candidate.

One of the areas some alternatives are better is not having an App, when on the move, or working remotely an app can be a plus

I think the pricing is important for all organizations, determining your needs from how many open jobs you anticipate per year will help determine the cost incurred for each hire when using an ATS.

It is important to ensure the features your organization needs are provided by the ATS you chose. For instance, some companies may not want all workflows automated only a few. A basic

I believe they do have constant updates to their UI, and workflow options, and increase integrations as they come available.

One of the notable changes has been the diversity, equity, and inclusion section that they have included which has been beneficial in hiring in line with new talent acquisition policies of the organization which aim to reduce biases when hiring.

The Lever ATS can be a good fit for organizations of various sizes and industries, but I think it is well suited for teams with strong hiring collaboration, teams seeking data driven hiring results and lastly looking for an ATS that can handle scalability. With Lever, it is very easy to involve many team members in a single hiring process which makes it easy for us to work together. Reporting is essential for each organization, with Lever it is easier. Lever provides valuable insights with reports which can help find areas that need focus and improvement quickly. Lastly, with Lever, you can manage to scale with market fluctuations, economic changes, and updates to hiring needs where you can scale up or down as needed.

• The UI is user-friendly, easy to navigate, and very candidate-centric.
• The system is so systematic that we can track where the applicant is in which interview stage at one glance.
• The features help to make faster & better decisions with good quality hires.

My organization wanted to switch to another ATS from the current one for a better recruiting experience, hence, we bought the Lever tool. My organization wanted to bring out a structured way of interviewing candidates and get an easy overview to understand which stage the candidate is in and the progress of the interview process. We have used it for 4 years and we’re happy with how it helped both our org and the potential candidates with an elevated experience of hiring. The UI of the tool is also very good with easy navigation.

• Many times Lever cannot detect duplicate candidates, which is annoying.
• The initial setup on Lever is hard.
• The tool is a little pricey compared to its competitors in the market.

Yes I have used Zoho ATS in the past and Zoho is also a very good all-in-one tool. Lever can be integrated with other tools as well. It has great reporting & analytics features which sets it apart.

People should keep in mind that Lever is an effective tool for candidate experience while applying and also for recruiters to track candidates, capture feedback and create structured interviews and enhance the experiences of users.

Lever now has an additional CRM tool feature which adds another feather to the advantage cap. The candidate surveys and dashboards have also been improvised.

Lever is good to use for organizations with a large employee base where too many stages of interviews are there and a large pool of candidates need to be evaluated, filtered, and shortlisted.