vs Workable
SortTheStack vs Workable
Workable is an all-in-one recruiting and HR platform. SortTheStack only screens applications. Here is how they differ on candidate evaluation, cost and effort, and which one fits which team.
The short verdict. These are different kinds of product. Workable is an all-in-one recruiting and HR platform: job board posting, a careers site, interview scheduling and scorecards, onboarding and HR records, with AI screening available through a credit-based agent. SortTheStack does one part of hiring: it reads every application against your requirements and shows you the evidence, so you can decide who to interview.
- Choose Workable if you want one system to run the whole process, from posting a job to hundreds of job boards through to onboarding the person you hire, and the price of a full platform makes sense for your hiring volume.
- Choose SortTheStack if your problem is the pile itself: you get far more applications than you can read carefully, you do not want to buy or run a recruiting platform to fix that, and you want to see the evidence behind every recommendation.
Disclosure: this comparison is published by SortTheStack. We have tried to be fair, and we say below where Workable is the stronger choice. We have not used Workable hands-on; everything said about it comes from Workable’s own pricing page and help centre, linked at the end. SortTheStack is currently onboarding new customers from a waitlist.
Last verified: 9 October 2026. Prices and features change; check the sources below before deciding.
Two different philosophies
Workable is built around the hiring pipeline. Its pricing page lists a candidate sourcing suite, an applicant tracking system, job board distribution to more than 200 boards, a careers page builder, self-scheduled interviews with two-way calendar sync, interview kits and scorecards, and an HR suite covering employee records, onboarding, time off and payroll preparation. AI screening is one part of that system.
SortTheStack is built around a single question: who deserves your attention, and why? You describe the job, it drafts the requirements for you to edit, and it evaluates every application against them. It is deliberately not an applicant tracking system and does not try to become one. It has light pipeline features (stages, notes, candidate emails, a shortlist link for hiring managers), but it has no job board posting, no interview kits or scorecards, and no HR features.
How each one evaluates candidates
This is where the two differ most, and it is worth understanding before choosing either.
Workable screens through Workable Agent, which evaluates each candidate against an “ideal candidate profile” for the job. According to Workable’s help centre, the agent’s score is “aggregated and normalized to 100%”, must-have criteria are worth twice the marks of other criteria, and every outcome is “supported by relevant reasoning”. If you turn the actions on, the agent can automatically disqualify candidates who miss criteria marked “Disqualify if not met” (reversible), and automatically move candidates to a pipeline stage when they pass score thresholds.
SortTheStack does not give candidates a number. Each application gets an outcome: Recommended, Possible, Needs review, or Requirements not met. Each requirement is marked as met, not met, or unclear, with the text from the application that supports the call. “Unclear” is kept separate from “not met”: a resume that says nothing about a requirement is not treated as evidence the person lacks it. Applications are set aside automatically only by knockout rules you write yourself (for example, “No” to “Do you hold a CPA designation?”), or, if you switch it on for a job, when the AI finds a clear mismatch. Both are logged and you can override either. No rejection email is sent unless someone clicks Reject.
Neither approach is automatically better. A score is quick to sort by and easy to set thresholds on. An outcome with evidence is slower to skim but harder to misread, because a number can look more precise than the judgement behind it. If you want automatic disqualification and stage moves at scale, Workable offers more automation. If you want to see what every judgement rests on before anything happens to a candidate, SortTheStack is built for that.
Feature comparison
| Capability | Workable | SortTheStack |
|---|---|---|
| AI screening of applications | Yes, via Workable Agent, billed in AI credits | Yes, included in every plan |
| How results are shown | Score out of 100 with reasoning | Outcome per candidate, evidence per requirement, no score |
| Automatic disqualification | Optional agent action | Only by your knockout rules, or an opt-in per job |
| Job board distribution | 200+ boards | No. You share the job’s link wherever you advertise |
| Careers page | Careers page builder | One page per job, with your logo and colour if you want them |
| Applications by email | Not verified | Yes, by forwarding |
| Interview scheduling | Self-scheduling, two-way calendar sync | Emails the candidate your own scheduling link; no calendar sync |
| Interview kits and scorecards | Yes | No |
| Shortlist for a hiring manager | Not verified | Shareable link on every plan; PDF on Practice and Group |
| Candidate sourcing | Sourcing suite and passive candidate search | No. Past-applicant matching on Practice and Group |
| HR features (records, onboarding, time off) | Yes | No |
| Team members | Not stated on the pricing page | Unlimited on every plan |
| Integrations and API | Native e-signatures, integrations, API access | None |
| Offer letters | Offer letter templates | No |
| Data export | Yes | CSV export |
“Not verified” means we did not find it in the Workable sources we reviewed. It does not mean Workable lacks it.
Pricing
The two are priced on different things, so a straight comparison is misleading. Workable prices by company size; SortTheStack prices by how many jobs you have open.
Workable, as listed on its pricing page for a company of 1–20 employees:
| Plan | Listed price |
|---|---|
| Standard | $299 a month ($3,588 a year) |
| Premier | $599 a month ($7,188 a year) |
| Enterprise | $719 a month ($8,628 a year) |
Premier and Enterprise are shown as annual plans. The page offers monthly and annual billing for Standard, but we could not confirm which billing period the $299 figure assumes. Workable Agent runs on AI credits: every paid account starts with 3,000 free credits, screening a candidate costs 1 credit, and more can be bought from $0.12 a credit (5,000 for $600). Credits expire a year after purchase. Prices for larger companies are not shown at the default size. All three plans list unlimited active jobs, subject to fair use. Workable offers a 15-day free trial of the Standard plan, which does not include the agent.
SortTheStack: First Pile free (one job, up to 100 resumes, full analysis on the top three), a single job for $149 one time, or Solo $49, Practice $199 and Group $399 a month. Every plan includes screening with unlimited team members. Prices are the same number in USD or CAD. See pricing for limits.
What that looks like in practice, for a small company with fewer than 20 employees, using the listed prices above:
| Situation | Workable Standard (listed) | SortTheStack |
|---|---|---|
| Three hires a year, one at a time | $3,588 a year | $447 (three single postings) |
| Up to two jobs open at a time, all year | $3,588 a year | $588 a year (Solo) |
| Up to five jobs open, steady hiring | $3,588 a year | $2,388 a year (Practice) |
This is not a like-for-like comparison. The Workable figure buys a full recruiting and HR platform; the SortTheStack figure buys screening. If you would use Workable’s job distribution, scheduling, scorecards and HR features, the fair comparison is against everything you would otherwise pay for those.
Strengths and limitations
Workable’s strengths
- One system for the whole hiring process, plus core HR.
- Job board distribution to more than 200 boards, which SortTheStack does not do at all.
- Interview kits and scorecards. Structured interviews are the strongest single predictor in the hiring research we have reviewed (see what predicts job performance), and Workable has tools for running them. SortTheStack does not.
- More automation once candidates are screened.
Workable’s limitations, for a small team with a screening problem
- You pay for a platform when the bottleneck may be one step of it.
- Pricing is set by company-size band (only the smallest band’s prices are shown publicly), and AI screening is metered in credits on top of the plan.
- In our view, a numeric score invites sorting by the number rather than reading the reasoning behind it. Workable does show that reasoning; whether people read it is up to them.
SortTheStack’s strengths
- Evidence for every requirement, with uncertainty shown rather than hidden.
- Free to try on one real pile, and $149 for a single hire with no subscription.
- Unlimited team members on every plan.
- Little to set up: a job description, and screening questions if you want them. No recruiting system to adopt.
SortTheStack’s limitations
- Not self-serve yet: new customers join from a waitlist.
- No job board posting, interview scorecards, calendar sync, HR features or integrations.
- If you already run Workable or another ATS, there is no integration. You would move applications in by uploading or forwarding them.
Which one fits your situation
A 12-person firm making two or three hires a year, with no HR person. You post the job yourself, and the problem is the 150 applications that follow. SortTheStack fits this well and costs a fraction of a platform. Choose Workable instead if you want it to post to job boards for you and you would use its interview and HR tools.
A 60-person company hiring most months. You need posting, scheduling, structured interviews and onboarding in one place. Workable, or another full applicant tracking system, is the better fit. SortTheStack covers only the screening step.
A team already using an ATS but drowning in applications. SortTheStack can sit alongside it for the screening step, but without an integration, someone has to move applications in. Check first whether your ATS’s own AI screening is good enough for your roles.
A recruiter screening for several clients. SortTheStack’s Group plan covers 15 open jobs, with shortlist PDFs for clients. We did not verify Workable’s pricing or terms for agencies.
How we made this comparison
We compared the two products on what matters most to a small team choosing between them: how candidates are evaluated, what each covers, cost, and the effort of adopting it.
- Workable information comes from its public pricing page and help centre, accessed on 9 October 2026. We did not test Workable hands-on, and features we could not find in those sources are marked “not verified”.
- SortTheStack information comes from our own product and its live plan settings. We make SortTheStack, so read our claims about it with that in mind.
- Prices are as listed on the date above, before tax, for the smallest company size Workable shows.
If anything here is wrong or out of date, tell us and we will correct it.
Sources
- Workable, Pricing, accessed 9 October 2026.
- Workable Help Center, Using the Workable Agent, accessed 9 October 2026.
- Workable Help Center, Best Practices: Explore Workable’s AI capabilities, accessed 9 October 2026.
- SortTheStack, Pricing and Product.