Full disclosure up front: Rubrily is our product. This comparison includes it, argues for it where we think it wins, and says plainly where another tool is the better choice. Every price below is as of July 2026, from official pricing pages where they exist and clearly marked as reported where vendors don't publish numbers. Prices change — verify with the vendor before deciding. We refresh this page quarterly.
What "AI ATS" means in 2026 — and how we compared
The AI ATS category now spans three different animals: screening-first platforms where AI interviews and evaluation are the core (Rubrily), workflow ATSs with AI layers added on top (Workable, Ashby, Greenhouse, Manatal, Zoho), and enterprise interview/assessment point solutions that aren't full ATSs at all (HireVue). We compared on four axes: what the AI actually does, whether its scores are explainable, what it costs at real usage, and who it's genuinely for.
The field at a glance (July 2026)
| Tool | AI screening depth | Pricing (official unless noted) | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rubrily | AI interviews + CV eval, per-criterion justified scores, blended Fit Score | Free — unlimited candidates, interviews, CV evals; paid tiers add automation/enterprise | Teams that want AI to do the screening, explained |
| Workable | Workable Agent (GA Jun 2026): agentic sourcing/screening — credit-metered | From $299/mo (1–20 employees) + $0.095–0.12 per candidate-credit after 1,000 | SMBs wanting an all-in-one HR suite |
| Ashby | Strong assistive AI: application review with citations, agentic assistant, analytics | $400/mo up to 100 employees; quote-only above | Data-driven startups/scale-ups |
| Greenhouse | Assistive AI (summaries, talent matching on upper tiers) | Quote-only; reported median ~$12k/yr | Mid-market/enterprise wanting structured-hiring rigor |
| Manatal | AI candidate scoring + recommendations; AI interviewer as paid add-on | $15–$55/user/mo | Budget-conscious SMBs and agencies |
| Zoho Recruit | Zia AI matching (Enterprise tier only) | ~$25–$75/recruiter/mo (reported; official page quotes dynamically) | Zoho-ecosystem shops |
| HireVue | Enterprise AI interviews + assessments (not a full ATS) | Quote-only; reported ~$25k–$145k+/yr, multi-year contracts | Fortune-500-scale volume hiring |
| Breezy HR | AI evaluation as credit add-on ($30/100k credits) | Free 1-position tier; paid $157–$439/mo | Small teams wanting drag-and-drop simplicity |
What actually separates them
Where the AI sits. In most of the field, AI assists a workflow: it summarizes, suggests, drafts. In screening-first platforms, AI does the interview and the evaluation — in Rubrily every applicant gets an async AI interview and a rubric-scored CV evaluation, producing a ranked shortlist rather than better paperwork. Neither design is wrong; they answer different problems. If your bottleneck is coordination, a workflow ATS with AI sprinkles may be enough. If your bottleneck is two hundred unscreened applicants, assistive AI won't touch it.
Whether scores explain themselves. This is the axis we'd urge you to weight hardest, whatever you buy: explainable scoring — per-criterion scores with written, evidence-citing justifications — versus opaque match percentages. Ashby's citation-based application review is genuinely good here. Rubrily makes it the entire architecture: every score decomposes to justifications and transcripts, and missing evidence returns "Cannot evaluate," never a guess. Several tools in this table still emit scores nobody can decompose; ask each vendor to show you the why behind one real score before you sign anything.
How pricing scales with hiring. The 2026 pattern is metered AI: Workable's agent bills per candidate processed; Breezy's intelligence is a credit pack; enterprise interview platforms price annually in five-to-six figures (reported). The uncomfortable math: your costs spike exactly when a role goes viral — the moment AI screening is most valuable. We priced against that on purpose: screening is free and unlimited in Rubrily, funded by optional candidate-side add-ons you can disable. Read the full pricing-model breakdown before comparing quotes.
Honest picks by situation
You want AI to actually run first-round screening: Rubrily. That's the category we built for — interviews, CV evaluation, and one Fit Score, free at any volume.
You want recruiting inside a broader HR suite: Workable. The HRIS/onboarding/payroll-prep bundle is real value if you'd buy those anyway — just model the agent credits at your actual applicant volume first (our full comparison).
You're a data-obsessed scale-up with budget: Ashby. Best-in-class analytics and honest, citation-driven assistive AI; watch the headcount-based cost curve.
You're standardizing a large org on structured hiring: Greenhouse — mature, rigorous, expensive, and heavier than small teams need.
You want the cheapest credible per-seat ATS: Manatal at $15/user/mo, with real if lighter AI.
You're already hiring at Fortune-500 volume with enterprise budget: HireVue is the incumbent for AI interviews at that scale — go in with eyes open on contracts and demand explainability (here's the alternatives view).
FAQ
What's the best free AI ATS? Rubrily is the only tool in this field where AI screening itself — unlimited interviews and CV evaluations — is free. Dover offers a genuinely free ATS (unlimited jobs and users) with AI scoring paywalled at $199/mo; Breezy's free tier is one position at a time. Full free-ATS comparison.
Are AI ATS scores reliable enough to rank candidates? Reliable enough to rank a pipeline, not to replace judgment — which is why explainability matters more than accuracy claims. Prefer tools whose every score carries an evidence-citing justification a human can audit, and treat unexplained match percentages as decoration.
Why is this comparison trustworthy if you make Rubrily? It might not be — verify us. That's why every claim above is sourced to official pricing pages or explicitly marked as reported, why we've said where rivals win, and why the one thing we ask you to demand from any vendor (including us) is a decomposable, justified score on a real candidate.
Compare us the hard way: define a rubric, screen your real applicants, and click into every score. Start free →