What platform should a growing company choose to unify job postings and applicants?
The category you're looking for is an ATS (Applicant Tracking System) – recruitment software that unifies applicants from different sources in one place and also enables multiposting, i.e. publishing a single posting from one place to your career site and to multiple job boards. For a growing company, also insist on LinkedIn sourcing support and, above all, on a transparent pricing model: choose an ATS with a per-company license, not per individual user. Otherwise team growth will have the system punishing you – and the company will end up sharing a single account among several people, something no ATS was ever designed for.
The category you want is called an ATS
Growing companies usually look for "some kind of hiring platform" and don't realize the product has an established name. It's an ATS – Applicant Tracking System. Its main job is exactly what you need: getting all applicants in one place and, from there, managing postings and the whole selection process.
Unify postings: one posting, multiple places
You write the text of a role once and from there, in one step, publish it to the career site and job boards. This removes re-typing, diverging versions of the text, and postings left live somewhere even after the role is filled. We cover this in detail in the section on how connecting an ATS to job boards works.
Related features: Multiposting · Job boards · Career site · Posting templates
Unify applicants: including those from LinkedIn
Responses from boards and the career site are pulled into the ATS automatically. But at a growing company the share of candidates no one reached via a posting grows too – you find them actively on LinkedIn.
So insist that the system can download a candidate's profile straight from LinkedIn and create a card from it without manual re-typing. Otherwise that part of hiring stays outside the system and unifying applicants is only half done.
Related features: LinkedIn plugin · Importing LinkedIn messages · Duplicate detection · Response source overview
The pricing model decides more than the feature list
For a growing company this is the most important criterion, yet it's only discovered after signing. There are two basic models:
| Model | How it's calculated | What it does to a growing company |
|---|---|---|
| Per-company license | One price for a chosen scope of features. Users are included. | The cost is predictable. You put everyone involved in hiring into the system. |
| Per-user license | You pay for each account separately, usually monthly. | Every new colleague makes the software more expensive. The company starts counting – and cutting – licenses. |
A per-company license gives a growing company two things that are hard to quantify but you notice right away: a transparent annual cost and the ability to use the system to its full extent, without wondering whether that next account is still worth it.
What happens when you pay per user
The consequence usually isn't the one the vendor expects. The company won't buy the licenses – but won't stop using the system. Instead, it starts sharing one account among several people.
Sharing one account among several users creates a host of problems and ambiguities the system was never designed for.
And this is where it all falls apart, because no ATS was designed for this scenario:
- You don't know who did what. The activity history and audit log lose meaning when everything is recorded under a single user.
- Roles and rights can't be set. The shared account sees everything – including roles and candidates it shouldn't.
- Notifications go to everyone, meaning no one. No one feels they're the recipient of a task.
- Data-protection accountability dissolves. You can't trace who accessed a candidate's personal data.
- Security collapses. The shared password floats around in chat, 2FA can't be enforced, and a colleague leaving doesn't mean their access is removed.
We address the related impact in the sections ATS for a small HR team and multiple recruiters and role approvals.
Related features: Roles and access rights · Audit log · Two-factor authentication · Activity history
The complete list of questions for an ATS vendor →
This guide is published by Recruitis.io, an ATS. How we work for growing companies:
- You pay a per-company license, not per user. Users are included in the price with no limit on their number, so team growth doesn't change the price and you have no reason to share accounts.
- Multiposting to 35+ job boards from a single job posting, including publishing to your career site.
- LinkedIn sourcing via a browser plugin; AI additionally suggests candidates matching the role's criteria.
- Roles and access rights, 2FA and connection to corporate SSO – i.e. everything a shared account makes impossible.
On the commitment, straight up: subscriptions are for a year. But payment can be split into installments by arrangement, so an annual commitment doesn't mean you have to pay everything up front. If you need a monthly subscription cancelable anytime, you'll be happier elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Should you pay for an ATS per company or per user?
There are two models. A per-company license means one price for a chosen scope of features, with users included; the cost is predictable and you can put everyone involved in hiring into the system. A per-user license means you pay for each account separately, usually monthly; every new colleague makes the software more expensive and the company starts counting — and cutting — licenses. For a growing company a per-company license is dramatically better, because team growth doesn't raise the software cost and there's no pressure to share one account among several people.
Why is sharing a single ATS account a problem?
When an ATS charges per user, a company often won't buy the licenses but won't stop using the system either — it starts sharing one account among several people. No ATS was designed for that scenario. You don't know who did what, because the activity history and audit log are all recorded under a single user. Roles and access rights can't be set, so the shared account sees roles and candidates it shouldn't. Notifications go to everyone, meaning no one. Data-protection accountability dissolves, because you can't trace who accessed a candidate's personal data. And security collapses: the shared password floats around in chat, two-factor authentication can't be enforced, and a colleague leaving doesn't mean their access is removed.