Likelihood to Recommend Recruiting and human resources is a good use for this tool. To some degree, reporting is fairly appropriate as well, unless you want super detailed reports, then I would say no. Anything related to managing candidate flow and making the recruitment process easier is where this tool is best used, upgrades need to be made so it's more useful in other areas before rolling out.
Read full review Google Hire is very good at doing the basics well. I believe for most internal HR departments at small companies, this is all you need. It also works well for small to medium-sized staffing companies that just want something reliable and easy to use. What Google Hire doesn't do very well is be flexible. They don't have custom options, they don't have a ton of settings, and their development cycle is slow. As a result, it's pretty much what you see is what you get.
Read full review Pros The commands and controls are fairly user friendly. This is a positive because as recruiters we don't want to waste time having to learn odd or awkward controls, we just want to intuitively click. The original implementation process was fairly seamless according to industry standards. This made for a smoother rollout, testing, and implementation phase. We didn't waste too much time with overly complicated technical issues, etc. Read full review Google does search well so when I search through our database for candidates, I'm confident that I'm pulling up all the right people from what we have. They have a modern and nice user interface - this is one of the biggest reasons to use it over other systems, as most ATS' are pretty ancient looking and not very pleasant to use. Their support is very good at answering and addressing questions. Their pricing is incredible. I'm sure at some point it will change, but for small companies paying 100+ per user for other ATS' - it's incredible to pay 100/month for the whole company. Read full review Cons The reporting function needs to be vastly improved. You can run the most basic reports, but if you want to get more granular it requires customization, extra fees, and involving a developer. This piece should be made easier. The lag time between load screens, clicking new screens, etc. was very slow at times. We don't believe this was a connectivity issue, rather something on Technomedia's end. Read full review Despite many many months of requests, Google still hasn't implemented ANY custom fields. This makes it tough for an external recruiting firm to track what they want (most importantly: desired salary). The job board integration is not great for external recruiters, mostly at the fault of Indeed. Indeed flagged us as a recruiting firm and so none of our jobs actually go live. While I know this is an Indeed problem (we had the same problem when using Bullhorn), Breezy ATS never has that problem for us so I don't know what they're doing differently. Their development cycles are quite frankly very slow. I've requested some features, and while support is great about telling me it's coming or in the pipeline, I honestly don't really see a difference in the product since we started using it. It's still great to use, and we still love the software, but there haven't been too many visible improvements that make any difference to our work. Being Google, it can sometimes be frustrating that one arm doesn't talk to the other. For example, they announced a Gmail for Works App/Extension integration, but for some reason when they launched it, admins of a domain couldn't install it. Google Hire pointed to the Google for Works team, and it took literally months to fix. Not the end of the world, but just very silly considering they're the same company. Read full review Alternatives Considered Technomedia stacks up below the other listed programs. It may solve the bare minimum of your issues, but when it comes to solving more complex issues and processes, it lacks. When you want to add additions or customize things, the process is very costly and labor intensive as well. If it were priced lower, it would make more sense, but there are much better solutions out there.
Read full review I picked Google Hire after spending about 3 months on
Bullhorn . I found
Bullhorn to be terrible. It's WAY more customizable and theoretically powerful, but it's also a pain to set up and maintain. Even just getting your job page set up on your own site required tech support. Getting it eventually to what you want could be a great benefit, but Google Hire does great right out of the box and is a lot cheaper.
Breezy HR is a great system. It's a bit more expensive than Google Hire for multiple job postings, but their system is equally easy to use and straight forward. However, we are all in on Google Products, so it was just a no brainer to go with Hire for a better price and most likely a better search function.
Read full review Return on Investment The positive impact of being able to manage candidates and help the overall recruiting process has been great. The addition of new users or customizing other features has proved cumbersome, expensive, and requires additional resources. Read full review Google Hire makes, unfortunately, a very little impact on our ROI, but I think in the ATS world that's a good thing. It simply acts as a record that we can put everything in and easily reference, and the fact that it works overall makes it a positive software product in the long run. While the search works great, I don't know that I've ever specifically found a candidate and placed them due to it. That could be a result of our job reqs though. The biggest most obvious impact is really just the price. We needed a tool that does what Google Hire does, reliably. Most other companies charge at least 150 or so for 2 people, whereas Google Hire is 100/month for many users. It gives us flexibility for the future and helps minimize what could be a big expense. That definitely helps our bottom line. Read full review ScreenShots