JazzHR is an ATS and recruiting software. JazzHR aims to replace antiquated hiring processes like email and spreadsheets with an intuitive applicant tracking system that helps recruiters and hiring managers build a scalable and effective recruiting process.
$99
per month
ResultsBI
Score5.1 out of 10
N/A
ResultsBI (formerly RESULTS.com) offers a cloud-based objectives and key results (OKR) software built around foundational features such as key performance indicator dashboards, project and task management functionality, and collaboration tools.
Since it allows you to tag candidates based on their level of talent or potential utility to the company, it is best used to identify the best prospects in large operations, such as multi-franchise oriented businesses that cover all kinds of sales. It can be used to make periodic assessments of the level of employee growth in certain departments, and based on the results let us know if certain employees would do better working in another type of area, so that the overall work operations are more uniform. JazzHR could excel in departments that use a high level of reporting, as its administrative tools provide high content reports with statistics on the performance of each employee or candidate at different levels.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Results.com would be a fantastic platform for a distributed team that has its data stored in a simple/single/common method and is looking for a single visual platform around which the culture of the company can collaborate, see relevant company metrics (and each other's metrics), and discuss the same. RESULTS.com is likely unnecessary for any team that is physically located together within an office and who can physically meet together. Such a scenario likely already has wall-projected charts and physically posted information. Further, we found RESULTS.com to be a bad choice for a company that has its data in several different locations, requiring the integration of several different APIs all coordinated together. Our somewhat complicated/disparate data simply didn't work well in the system to the point where people eventually were conditioned to NOT believe the numbers shown in RESULTS.com.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
It has a very nice graphical/visual display of metrics/KPIs that are fed into it.
It has a fantastic meetings agenda and communication module that helped better connect our geographically distributed offices.
It solved the problem we had of using several different platforms for each need - providing a central place for results-orientated information sharing and discussion.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Like all BI software, the pretty graphics and charts and information are only as accurate as what is put into the system. It does not have parameters that will flag suspect data, which became a problem as our data sources increased and the results.com integration required more and more results.com-side development.
The promise of having the corporate mission/vision/values/etc. all connected to individual priorities and associated KPIs never came to pass. Being early adopters, we purchased partly on the promises of salespeople. As time marched on, support and development dropped off in favor of increasing their sales department.
We believe, through our experience with results.com, that the company was built to sell quickly. That is, we believe the owner/s blasted through their funding in the first year to onboard as many users as possible so they could increase value for a quick sale. Then we believe that when the money was mostly spent, and there was no sale, the company had to become a normal, profitable, long-term business which led to expense cutting, a RIF of developers and customer support, and the resulting slowdown/stoppage/inability to develop and support the product. Our feeling in the last months on the platform was one where it seemed the employees/owners were unhappy and disgruntled to have to actually run it as a business and deal with customers. (This is our guess and belief based on what we saw over time and without any knowledge whatsoever on what was actually happening over there.)
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
It worked well for the majority of our needs and is still in use even though I've left the company. The Resumator was an interim solution until we found a system that integrated with all our other internal systems. However, we ended up staying with it because of ease of use
It's not a 10 due to the eTemplates. If those were less time-consuming to set up and if some common forms were available to select from already set up, then I would give it a 10.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
When it worked, it worked nicely. Unfortunately, it didn't work for us all the time - and less so as the months went on. So, although relatively "easy to use," it stopped providing value due to its data integration problems. Thus, when the data was incorrect, people stopped using it.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Each person I've spoken to have been helpful, positive and encouraging. Once you begin using JazzHR, they have intervals in which they reach out to you to see how you're doing or if you have any questions. When you're setting up, they review what you've done and offer praise as well as suggestions on how to make it work better for you. They offer webinars and online training videos to walk you through every process.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
This is a solid 5 because the first year we had fantastic customer support. We had a comprehensive training, a (seemingly) dedicated support staffer, a fair amount of development help to integrate things, and consultations with people associated with RESULTS.com who have made a name for themselves in this general method of business operations. But, after the first year that mostly dried up. It was a 10 the first year, and a 1 the next years - averaging to a 5.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
A solutions consultant walked me through each step. It was easy. As I progressed in setting things up, their support contacted me to set a time to walk through any possible issues and make suggestions on a better way to set it up. At any time, if I had a question, they were available and there are also training documents and videos available.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
Both Greenhouse and Lever at least seemed to have great products and great teams; they simply weren't worth 2-5X the cost for us. Now, let's be clear - a platform that helps you hire the best people is a certainly worth 2-5X (or perhaps 10X) the cost. However, for most small and medium businesses, the three platforms are very similar. Once you have ~100s of different positions or ~100,000 applicants, then a more advanced ATS could be worth the cost. For us, Jazz is excellent. We have about 8 types of roles and 250 employees, and we see the Jazz system working very well for us even as we grow to 1,000+ employees.
We have examined a variety of similar products both before, during, and after our time with results.com. We are currently using Sisense which is an entirely higher level than results.com in terms of B.I. - not only in the drill-down type of data access and reporting but certainly in its ability to handle multiple data sources effectively.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
We did not utilize a BI dashboard nor a standardized meeting agenda system before results.com so in that respect, it helped us establish a results/performance-orientated culture which was badly needed.
Unfortunately, beyond that first year, results.com didn't keep up with our struggles with data imports. That, combined with the inability for us to see direct ROI $ increases, led us to eventually leave the platform. Unfortunately, they locked us into a longer term (even without providing promised services) and so we technically were on the system (but not using it) for 6+ months past the date where we'd all agreed it was not useful for anyone anymore.
A de minimis incentive was given to thank the reviewer for their time. The incentive was not used to bias or drive a particular response, nor was the incentive contingent on a positive endorsement. More Info
