Lever
An ATS combined with a recruiting CRM, priced on company headcount by quote (estimated about $12,000 a year at 200 employees).
- Quote-based
- By headcount
- Cloud
- ATS + CRM
- Independent sources
- Verified 10 Nov 2026Sources are dated on this profile
- 2 sourcesLinked, typed and dated
- Independent third-party sourcesHow this profile was compiled
- Not an endorsementStack18 has not tested this product
What is Lever?
Lever is an applicant tracking system with built-in candidate relationship management (CRM) for sourcing and nurturing talent, part of Employ Inc.
- Best forTeams that source and nurture candidates proactively
- Team size fitMid-size teams, Large enterprises
- PricingCustom quote by headcount; estimates about $12,000 a year at 200 employees and $35,000-$65,000 at 500-1,000.
- Main limitationNo published pricing.
- AlternativesGreenhouse, Ashby, SmartRecruiters, Workable · compare all
Lever overview: who it is for and what it does.
Lever pairs applicant tracking with a candidate CRM, so recruiters can source, nurture and re-engage talent pools as well as manage applicants.
An August 2026 guide says Lever is priced by custom quote based on total company headcount, estimating about $12,000 a year at 200 employees and $35,000 to $65,000 at 500 to 1,000 employees; its table gives a wider range.
The guide notes Lever was acquired by K1 Investment Management in 2022 and sits within Employ Inc. alongside Jobvite and JazzHR.
Main problem it solves
Combines sourcing relationships and applicant tracking in one system.
Typical customer segment
Mid-market and enterprise.
Target users
- Recruiters and sourcers
- Talent acquisition leaders
- Hiring managers
Primary use cases
- Candidate sourcing
- Talent nurturing
- Applicant tracking
- Interview feedback
What makes it distinct
- Built-in CRM.
- Headcount-based pricing.
- Part of Employ Inc.
Lever features explained.
Pricing (estimates)
- 200 employees
- About $12,000 a year.
- 500 to 1,000 employees
- $35,000 to $65,000 a year.
- Model
- Custom quote by headcount.
Platform
- ATS
- Applicant tracking.
- CRM
- Sourcing and nurture.
- API
- Publicly documented.
Ownership
- Owner
- K1 Investment Management (2022).
- Group
- Employ Inc.
- Siblings
- Jobvite, JazzHR.
Lever pricing and plans.
Figures reported by independent sources; vendor page not reviewed directly. Checked 10 Nov 2026 against Rework · Yardstick.
Pricing model
Annual quote based on company headcount.
Free plan
No
Free trial
Not documented
Lever plans and prices (USD)
Lever (ATS + CRM)
Quote (est. ~$12,000 per year at 200 employees)
Annual
Priced by headcount.
Estimates from Rework (August 2026); ranges conflict within the source.
Prices change. Confirm current plans and terms on the vendor's site before you decide.
Visit official website (external) ↗See alternativesLever integrations, API and platforms.
Important integrations
- Slack
- Google Workspace
- HRIS systems
Supported platforms
- Web
- iOS
- Android
API
Not reviewed for this profile.
Data import and export
Not reviewed for this profile.
Integration coverage was not assessed in full. Check Lever's integrations directory and documentation for your tools.
Lever pros and cons.
Strengths, limitations and best fit. Each point cites a source; editorial summaries are not customer reviews.
Limitations
Best for
- Teams that source and nurture candidates proactively
- Mid-market talent teams
- Recruiting-heavy companies
May be less suited to
- Small businesses
- Buyers wanting self-serve pricing
Top Lever alternatives and competitors.
Greenhouse
A structured-hiring ATS for growing and enterprise companies, with quote-based pricing estimated from…
Explore →Related productAshby
An all-in-one ATS, CRM, scheduling and analytics platform, with Foundations from about $400 a month for…
Explore →Related productSmartRecruiters
An enterprise talent acquisition suite acquired by SAP in 2025, with Essential from $14,995 a year.
Explore →Related productWorkable
A self-serve ATS with published pricing: Standard from $299 a month billed annually ($360 monthly), with…
Explore →Lever compared with similar applicant tracking systems.
Summaries come from each profile. This is a side-by-side aid, not a ranking.
| Product | Pricing model | Starting price | Free plan / trial | Published pricing | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lever | Quote by headcount | ~$12,000/yr at 200 staff (est.) | No | No | Sourcing + ATS |
| Ashby | By company size | ~$300-$400/mo | Not documented | Partly | All-in-one recruiting |
| Greenhouse | Quote (annual) | ~$6,500/yr (est.) | No | No | Structured hiring |
| iCIMS | Quote + implementation | ~$30,000/yr (est.) | No | No | Large enterprises |
| JazzHR | Flat fee | $1,000/yr | Free trial | Yes | Small businesses |
| Recruitee | Quote (1-year min) | ~EUR 301/mo (est.) | Not documented | No | Collaborative hiring |
Lever vs competitors: head-to-head comparisons.
Each comparison has a feature table, pricing side by side, strengths and limits, and best-fit scenarios.
Lever discussions and buying questions.
No published discussions mention this product yet.
Lever questions and answers
What is Lever used for?
Lever is an applicant tracking system with built-in candidate relationship management (CRM) for sourcing and nurturing talent, part of Employ Inc. Typical uses include candidate sourcing, talent nurturing, applicant tracking, interview feedback.
How much does Lever cost?
Lever quotes by company headcount; an August 2026 guide estimates about $12,000 a year at 200 employees.
Who owns Lever?
K1 Investment Management acquired it in 2022; it is part of Employ Inc.
Does Lever include a CRM?
Yes, sourcing and nurture CRM is built in.
How does Lever compare with its competitors?
Stack18 publishes head-to-head comparisons of Greenhouse vs Lever and Lever vs Ashby, each with a feature table, pricing and best-fit scenarios.
What are the main alternatives to Lever?
The main alternatives to Lever covered on Stack18 are Greenhouse, Ashby, SmartRecruiters and Workable. Greenhouse may suit scaling companies that want structured, data-driven hiring. Ashby may suit fast-growing companies wanting ATS, CRM and analytics in one tool. SmartRecruiters may suit enterprises and high-volume hirers, especially SAP customers. See the Lever alternatives guide for a side-by-side table.
What are the pros and cons of Lever?
Strengths: Built-in candidate CRM. Documented public API. Limitations: No published pricing. Price scales with total headcount.
Who is Lever best for?
Lever may suit teams that source and nurture candidates proactively; mid-market talent teams; recruiting-heavy companies. It may be less suited to small businesses; buyers wanting self-serve pricing.
What integrations does Lever support?
Documented integrations and ecosystem items include LinkedIn, Slack, Google Workspace, HRIS systems. API: Not reviewed for this profile.
When was the Lever profile last verified?
Sources for this profile were last reviewed on 10 Nov 2026. 2 sources are listed under Sources, and prices and plans can change, so confirm with the vendor.
Where this information comes from.
- Best Applicant Tracking Systems in 2026 (updated 13 August 2026) Rework Third-party Accessed 10 Nov 2026
- ATS pricing comparison (terms read September 2026) Yardstick (competing vendor) Third-party Accessed 10 Nov 2026
Secondary-source profile. Vendor pages were not reviewed directly for this profile. Facts and prices are taken from independent third-party sources and may differ from the vendor's current pages. Confirm with the vendor before buying.
Facts come from Rework (August 2026) and Yardstick (a competitor). Capabilities were not tested.
Stack18 has not tested this product or received anything from the vendor for this profile. Editorial summaries of vendor information are not endorsements. Confirm details with the vendor before buying.
Evaluating Lever?
Check the vendor's current pricing and terms, compare it with similar products, or read how others approach the decision. If off-the-shelf is not the answer, Stack18 builds around how your business works.
Logos provided by Logo.dev. Product names and logos are trademarks of their respective owners and appear for identification only; they do not imply endorsement.