Skip to content
SlateIndex
MonsterRecruiting
vs
WorkableAll-in-one HR software
Comparison · Recruiting · weekly run Nov 3

Monster vs Workable

Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?

The short answer

Workable is the stronger AI pick in Recruiting: it has a visibility score of 30.1 versus 1.8 for Monster, and ranks ahead in 0% of the answers that name both.

Choose Monster if…

  • AI answers describe it more positively (50% vs 44% positive)
  • You prefer a larger, established vendor (1,001–5,000 employees)
  • Large-scale or hourly hiring option

Choose Workable if…

  • You want the brand AI engines rank higher (30.1 vs 1.8)
  • You need ISO/IEC 27001 or ISO/IEC 27017 or SOC 2 Type II or SOC 3 coverage
  • fast deployment and ease of use
  • intuitive automation and candidate tracking

AI visibility side by side

Latest weekly run · Nov 3

Metric Monster Workable
Visibility score1.8%30.1%
Change vs last weekNewNew
Rank in Recruiting#42#2
Share of voice0.4%7.2%
Mentions this run238
Positive in AI answers50%44%

The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.

Visibility score trend

Weekly runs over the last 60 days

0%25%50%75%100%Nov 3Monster 2%

Monster 0pp · Workable 0pp over 0 weekly runs.

Engine by engine

Workable leads on 3 of 3 engines

ChatGPT
0%
34.1%
AI Mode
3.7%
29.4%
Perplexity
1.7%
26.7%
MonsterWorkable

Head to head in AI answers

1 engine answers name both brands

1Monster ranked higher
0Workable ranked higher
PromptEngineMonsterWorkable
Alternatives to the most popular recruiting platform Perplexity#5#6

Features, pricing & fit

DimensionMonsterWorkable
Pricing model—Flat tiers
Entry price—$299 / mo
Free plan—No · 15-day trial
Deployment—Cloud-based SaaS
Integrations—270+
Compliance—ISO/IEC 27001, ISO/IEC 27017, SOC 2 Type II, SOC 3
Support—Priority support on Premier and Enterprise plans
Founded19942012
HeadquartersWeston, MassachusettsBoston, Massachusetts, USA
Employees1,001–5,000201–500
FundingGrowth equity · $58M raisedSeries C, led by Zouk Capital · $84M raised
Best for—Companies of any size that care about time-to-value and ease of use and want a system that is fast to implement and easy to adopt, with a focus on small and medium-sized businesses.

Plans side by side

Monster

Pricing not available.

Workable

Standard$299month, billed annually, bundle of Recruiting and HR
Premier$599month, billed annually, bundle of Recruiting and HR
Enterprise$719month, billed annually, bundle of Recruiting and HR
Workable pricing

Pros and cons

Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand

Monster

  • Large-scale or hourly hiring option
  • Employer accounts require choosing a paid posting or subscription plan

Workable

  • fast deployment and ease of use
  • intuitive automation and candidate tracking
  • transparent pricing and free trial
  • all-in-one ATS and hiring platform
  • candidate sourcing
  • costs more than lightweight ATS options

Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run

Cite as: SlateIndex, “Monster vs Workable”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/monster-vs-workable, data of Nov 3, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.