Hire, by Google, was a recruiting app for G suite customers. The product includes functionality for applicant tracking, candidate relationship management, and candidate sourcing. Google sunsetted the product in late 2020.
N/A
Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM
Score 7.5 out of 10
N/A
Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM, or Oracle Taleo, is a cloud HCM solution with Talent Management solutions. Its talent management solution includes Recruiting, Onboarding, Learning, Career Development, Opportunity Marketplace, Performance Management, Compensation, Succession Planning, etc.
$4
Per Employee Per Month
Pricing
Hire by Google (discontinued)
Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Help Desk
$4.00
Per Employee Per Month
Talent Management
$10.00
Per Employee Per Month
Global HR
$15.00
Per Employee Per Month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Hire by Google (discontinued)
Oracle Fusion Cloud HCM
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Yes
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Required
Additional Details
—
Contact Oracle HCM for detailed pricing information at +1.800.392.2999
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.
Oracle HCM is very much helpful and well suited in the recruitment and placement process and HR data. It makes it easier for HR in [organizations] to keep track of who is in and out of the [organization]. Improvement can be made by allowing employees to record their own data and update it as and when necessary without having to go through HR first.
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.
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.
Government entities share data readily on applicants and HCM doesn't make it easy to have applications transferred between organizations. If applicants could apply once and send that application to multiple entities that would really make it more appealing to clients. This is a niche that is currently filled with NEOGOV, however Oracle's analytics are far superior to those in NEOGOV
There are no customizations allowed so clients need to work within the configuration standards or create a bolt on. Many times your greatest asset is also one of your biggest weaknesses.
Oracle is a large company and sometimes it can be hard to navigate the support matrix that they have set up. They also have tiers of support so you can pay more to get more, which isn't optimal from a customer point of view.
Taleo does what we need it to do and based on the costs from both a time and money perspective, I don't see us changing anytime soon. If anything I think we will look to leverage the capabilities available that we may not already be using.
After the initial training's, it was quite intuitive to use the application. The application is based upon best practices and the overall flows are quite logical. The train stop approach also ensures that users understand where they are in the process cycle. Also, the number of clicks have been greatly rationalized to ensure that there is more streamlined experience.
It works well. However we recently discovered that it no longer is supported on Internet Explorer so we had to change the default browser for everyone in our organization to MS Edge.
The rating is based upon our current level of support. The overall experience has vastly changed since we moved into product paid support. 'Also, with Oracle going with the model of quarterly patches, it makes sense to have the product company provide support to the overall application thereby eliminating the problems of bugs.
There is a lot of potential on Fusion. We have reaped about 10% of potential benefits. Especially on Workforce Intelligence, the opportunities are huge. The reason why we do not use the solution at its full potential is not in the product (which is simple and transparent). A roadmap is under construction to bring more of its potential to the end user.
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.
Firstly, create a template for the data of human resources to be filled by the client with help from us, then We transformed the paperwork, excel, word sheets, did data cleansing and refined the data, and matched data with the correct fields inside the template and imported the data to oracle cloud hcm by using human capital management data loader
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.
We were not good at tracking any numbers around recruiting so now this last year we have been able to set the benchmark that we now can work toward improving.
At any given time, we could not say how many open positions we had. Now we are able to keep track of that.
We do a much better job with communicating with candidates now, especially the ones not selected. This will help us maintain a better reputation and attract the candidates back for other jobs they may be a better fit for in the future.
