hireEZEnterprise Hiring, Run by Agents. Recruiters Decide.
vs
SeekOutThe agentic AI recruiting platform that runs on your terms
Comparison · Recruiting · weekly run Nov 3
hireEZ vs SeekOut
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
SeekOut is the stronger AI pick in Recruiting: it has a visibility score of 5.3 versus 2.5 for hireEZ, and ranks ahead in 83% of the answers that name both.
Choose hireEZ if…
- AI answers describe it more positively (29% vs 25% positive)
- AI-powered outbound sourcing
- cross-platform talent mapping
- diversity hiring support
Choose SeekOut if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (5.3 vs 2.5)
- You want a lower entry price ($149 vs $494)
- You need SOC 2 Type 2 or GDPR or CCPA or ISO/IEC 42001:2023 or ISO/IEC 23894:2023 coverage
- Free trial with unlimited AI-powered profile searches
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 3
| Metric | hireEZ | SeekOut |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 2.5% | 5.3% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in Recruiting | #33 | #18 |
| Share of voice | 1.1% | 1.9% |
| Mentions this run | 6 | 11 |
| Positive in AI answers | 29% | 25% |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
hireEZ 0pp · SeekOut 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
SeekOut leads on 3 of 3 engines
ChatGPT
AI Mode
Perplexity
hireEZSeekOut
Head to head in AI answers
6 engine answers name both brands
1hireEZ ranked higher
5SeekOut ranked higher
| Prompt | Engine | hireEZ | SeekOut |
|---|---|---|---|
| What are the best recruiting tools in 2026? | Perplexity | #12 | #11 |
| Compare the leading recruiting platforms | ChatGPT | #15 | #14 |
| Alternatives to the most popular recruiting platform | ChatGPT | #3 | #2 |
| Best recruiting platform with AI features | Perplexity | #6 | #5 |
| Official website of the top recruiting platform vendors | ChatGPT | #21 | #22 |
| How much does AmazingHiring cost? | ChatGPT | #3 | #2 |
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | hireEZ | SeekOut |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per seat | Per seat |
| Entry price | $494 per seat / mo | $149 per seat / mo |
| Free plan | No · 7-day trial | No · 14-day trial |
| Deployment | Layered on top of the customer's existing ATS with no rip-and-replace, deployed in weeks. | Cloud, hosted on Microsoft Azure |
| Integrations | 40+ | — |
| Compliance | — | SOC 2 Type 2, GDPR, CCPA, ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 23894:2023 |
| Support | — | Help center and trainings, Dedicated customer success on higher plans, Dedicated integration and onboarding, White-glove implementation on the full plan |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
| Headquarters | Mountain View, California, US | Bellevue, WA, United States |
| Employees | 51–200 | 51–200 |
| Funding | Series C | Series C · $189M raised |
| Best for | Enterprise talent acquisition teams that want agentic AI added to their existing ATS, as well as individual recruiters starting out. | Solo sourcers and teams starting with dedicated recruiting seats, up to enterprises running the full recruiting funnel |
Plans side by side
SeekOut
SeekOut Sourcing Core (Recruit Core)$149per seat per month, billed annually; $179/mo billed monthly
SeekOut Sourcing (Recruit)Customper seat, custom, billed annually
SeekOut Sourcing + Integration (Recruit)Customcustom packages by team size, billed annually
SeekOut Full Recruiting Funnel (Recruit)Customcustom, billed annually
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
hireEZ
- AI-powered outbound sourcing
- cross-platform talent mapping
- diversity hiring support
- AI-assisted sourcing capabilities
- per-recruiter cost may be high relative to alternatives
SeekOut
- Free trial with unlimited AI-powered profile searches
- Strong for sourcing passive talent
- Per-recruiter cost may be high relative to alternatives
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “hireEZ vs SeekOut”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/hireez-vs-seekout, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.