Likelihood to Recommend
CvViz is more suited to technical roles. You can run video interviews and tests where you can observe the practical skills of applicants i.e getting developers to code/debug. It's also good for verbal communication skills testing i.e recording role play with prospective sales employees. The downside is that you can't really use this to test the project management skills of prospects, but that isn't a failing of CvViz specifically, it's more about the lack of virtual recruitment tests for this space.
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 Centralized dashboard to keep up with the key metrics like total resumes and pass through rate Multi vendor and multi customer so hiring for all companies or clients. perfect for recruitment agencies Easily filter all the candidates by status, source, tags, qualifications and so much more 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 mobile experience specifically for job posting is lacking. Some of the drop-down elements don't appear in mobile view. The 'add candidate to database' section via web shouldn't have qualification as a mandatory field. Not all qualifications are standardized so it limits searching. You can only post by local currency which can be an issue if you're looking to recruit freelancers from other countries as you can't attract them via their local currency. 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
Only used Indeed before so I didn't know what was possible when it came to recruiting and resume management software. Then I discovered CVViZ and was blown away by its collection of easy-to-use features. It has a great roadmap and a dedicated team of developers and to ensure it's going to be a fantastic investment.
Read full review
I picked Google Hire after spending about 3 months on
. I found
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.
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 Custom recruitment tool helps us add value to our clients because it centralizes where data is stored. Negative part is there are no white label options. Easy to scale and deploy keeps us agile and able to increase workload without a dip in performance. 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