Evaluate recruiting software by running a small hiring process from an approved opening to a completed handoff. Bring your own fictional candidate records, interview requirements and permission rules. The demonstration should show who does each task, what information they can see and what happens when the normal path changes.
This guide is for hiring operations teams comparing an applicant tracking system, a recruiting CRM or a combined service. An ATS usually organizes applications against openings; a recruiting CRM emphasizes ongoing relationships with potential candidates. Product boundaries overlap, so judge the workflow you need rather than the label.
Define the process before the demonstration
Choose one representative role. Write down who approves the opening, publishes it, reviews applications, schedules interviews, collects evidence, decides on an offer and sends the final employee record onward. Identify the authoritative record at each handoff.
Prepare a small synthetic set: one applicant for the chosen job, the same person applying to a second job, a prospect with no application yet, and a candidate who withdraws. Add a rescheduled interview and an interviewer who should have limited access. Keep real candidate data out of an unapproved trial.
Define the job-related criteria before reviewing applicants. A scorecard can organize evidence against those criteria. Greenhouse’s scorecard documentation is one product example of structured feedback and permission-dependent access; it is not a comparative ranking of vendors.
Run the same scenario in each system
On small screens, scroll the table horizontally. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.
| Task | Ask the vendor to show | Record the result |
|---|---|---|
| Create and approve an opening | Required fields, approver changes and revision history. | Can the team identify the approved version? |
| Handle repeat applicants | A person record connected to two separate applications. | Which history is shared, and which belongs to each job? |
| Schedule and reschedule | Candidate time zone, interviewer availability and updated invitations. | Do all participants receive the correct new details? |
| Collect feedback | Criteria, interview assignment and independent submission. | Can reviewers distinguish missing evidence from a negative assessment? |
| Restrict access | A limited interviewer account and a recruiter account. | Which notes, compensation fields and other applications can each see? |
| Close or withdraw | Status history, communications and applicable retention controls. | Can the team explain what remains and who can access it? |
| Export and hand off | Sample records, identifiers, attachments and destination mapping. | Can another system or reviewer interpret the export? |
Use a simple result vocabulary: works as shown, works after configuration, needs an integration, unavailable, or unverified. Record the plan tier and any added service required. A promise about a future release belongs in the unverified column until it is demonstrated in the version being considered.
Test permissions from the restricted account
Ask to sign in as the limited interviewer, not just view an administrator’s permissions screen. Open the assigned interview, submit feedback and attempt an appropriate denied-access test against an unrelated job. Use only synthetic records and an authorized trial environment.
Decide when interviewers should see colleagues’ feedback. Greenhouse documents choices that can allow viewing only after the interviewer submits their own scorecard in its visibility settings. The important evaluation question is whether your intended independent-review process can be configured and observed.
Test candidate-facing forms with keyboard navigation and the assistive technology your organization supports. Check instructions, required-field errors, attachments and accommodation contact routes. Ask who owns privacy notices, retention decisions and deletion requests; those requirements depend on your organization and applicable rules. A product setting alone does not settle them.
Worked example: one person, two applications
For integrations, inspect stable candidate, application and job identifiers in a sample export. A name or email address can change. The handoff should identify which record was updated and support retrying a failed transfer without silently creating another person.
Make a decision the team can maintain
Separate must-pass requirements from conveniences. Typical must-pass items include the team’s access boundaries, a usable candidate journey, a reliable interview process and interpretable data export. For configuration or integration gaps, record an owner, cost basis and acceptance test before treating the feature as available.
If an AI feature summarizes interviews or drafts communications, use synthetic material to test omissions and unsupported statements. Keep accountable human review of candidate evidence and decisions. Establish which data is sent to the feature and how it is retained before enabling it for real candidates.
Use the recruiting demonstration worksheet to compare observed results. Re-run the key scenario when changing plans, interview structure, permissions or downstream HR integration. For broader access planning, see Single Sign-On.
Continue exploring
- Single Sign-On: Identity, App Permissions, and a Rollout Checklist
- Data Cleansing
- Web Services Legacy Integration
- All software guides and earlier coverage
Guide and linked documentation reviewed September 7, 2026. For product-specific procedures, verify the deployed version, permissions and organization settings.