Lever Reviews

If you are an organization that is looking to consolidate, organize the recruitment process -- Lever tool is definitely for you. On the other hand, if it's a smaller company, you would have to invest a lot since someone needs to maintain the configuration of the recruitment process and it might be tedious.

Lever works well for our organization's needs, wouldn't be necessary for small biz, but it is great to manage hiring and interviewing for our company.

Lever is a great tool to use for large company's recruitment and hiring needs. I have not worked with a better 3rd party platform to do this. The one callout is Lever does not integrate with all 3rd party test-taking tools.

Lever is perfect for early recruiting processes and can also be utilized by more seasoned teams for internal interviews as well! It may be less appropriate for other HR processes like emails, schedules, and presenting offers when actually extending the opportunity to take a position at our company.

Lever is good as an introductory hiring management solution where you start receiving 50 - 100 applications for a position. It works well with a smaller number of candidates and when there are fewer people involved in the process. Once you start getting several hundred people into the system and you are implementing things like SSO, which most enterprise companies use, things become very complicated and can get messed up very easily.

Lever is a solid applicant tracking system that is reasonably priced and can be deployed quickly across an organization. It is easy to use and does not require substantial training.

If you're looking to build a predictable recruitment funnel, Lever is a great way to build some solid foundation that will scale with your recruitment team. We hit the ground running quickly with minimal human resources and built a funnel that managed hundreds of candidates across multiple positions on multiple continents, and now we're in a great place to hire a full-time recruiter to take that foundation and scale it up for our next 50 hires.

1. Standard Version very nice to handle all candidates and pools in a professional and structured way. 2. Enterprise Version Total process including the search and job description presentation far better than in the standard version.

For growing companies that need to move from manual candidate tracking or provide a way to get feedback from interviewers in a central location, this is a good potential solution. If you are looking for something that takes a more quantitative approach to recruiting, the way we were set up wouldn't work very well. It seems to be a strictly qualitative evaluation based solution.

Lever benefits companies that want to empower their in-house recruiters, talent managers, and HR professionals to use their time more effectively. It has been a perfect first ATS for my company insofar as it integrated pieces we had in place (Google forms, Google calendar, Gmail, DocuSign, Slack) to unlock their best potential. It's especially helpful in our context because each department has their own hiring managers who do not work full-time in the hiring capacity. It helps them keep the hiring process to a more manageable portion of their day.

It may not get its full use at companies or in departments where hiring is not as democratic, or where more recruiters are used in a less hands-on way. For example, our engineering and sales teams rely on recruiters--and are used to maintaining infrequent conversations with them when hiring occurs. Lever does have options for providing recruiters access to the team, and keeping their candidates in the pipeline (tagged appropriately). Perhaps ultimately Lever is not appropriate for departments/companies who are adverse to technology or who do not wish to explore how their current process could be more structured.

I can't think of a scenario where it wouldn't be appropriate. I have used a number of ATS systems and I think LEVER has one of the better reporting and analytics functions. It would be less pleasant to use if hiring managers and interviewers were less cooperative in a self-service model.

Lever is a phenomenal choice if your organization uses Google and is able to implement a single pipeline for hiring.

It's somewhat less appropriate if you are a lean organization or need multiple pipelines.

Lever is for the true recruiter who needs their ATS to be a single source of truth but can be a bit dogmatic, whereas Greenhouse is for someone who has a lot of time on their hands to work on feature/function customizations. Also, CRM capabilities are included in your core Lever package, in comparison to Greenhouse, who is now charging talent teams PER seat for CRM capabilities they consider be ancillary.