Recruiting CRM and sourcing · October 2026 Edition
Manatal vs LinkedIn Recruiter
Zero of fourteen models named Manatal first on the direct prompt; one named LinkedIn Recruiter. Manatal was named by eleven of the fourteen models and LinkedIn Recruiter by fourteen and Manatal carries 21 labels and LinkedIn Recruiter 34, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in nine categories this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
First-choice share15%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate5%26%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#3#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2134A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Manatal reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Gem was named alongside these two in nine of the fourteen direct answers. Gem vs Manatal · Gem vs LinkedIn Recruiter · Lever vs Manatal
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all fourteen models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the Recruiting CRM and sourcing page.
By framing
How many of the fourteen models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.
ManatalFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLinkedIn Recruiter
Direct011 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Paraphrase10
Comparative081 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Budget-constrained611 against Manatal · 3 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Scale-constrained10
Negative004 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Bars are first choices, 0 to 14 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to fourteen.
Every model, every framing
The eighty-four answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Manatal and LinkedIn Recruiter stood in it.
| Model | Direct | Paraphrase | Comparative | Budget-constrained | Scale-constrained | Negative |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-5.4 mini | | | | |||
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | | | ||||
| Perplexity Sonar | | |||||
| Grok 4.1 Fast | | | | |||
| Mistral Small | | |||||
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | | | ||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | | |||||
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | | | | |||
| Kimi K2 | | | ||||
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | | | | |||
| MiniMax M2.5 | | | | |||
| GPT-6 Luna | | | | |||
| Muse Glimmer 30B | | |
Manatal LinkedIn Recruiter first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Manatal on the left and LinkedIn Recruiter on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Manatal and LinkedIn Recruiter stood in it.
LinkedIn Recruiter first, Manatal not the choice
1 of 14 modelsManatal was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.GPT-5.4 miniLinkedIn Recruiter alternatives: Hiring Pro
Neither was the first choice, one was named
2 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Kimi K2Gem, hireEZ alternatives: LinkedIn Recruiter, SeekOut
GPT-6 LunaGem alternatives: LinkedIn Recruiter, SeekOut
Neither was named
11 of 14 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.Claude Haiku 4.5Jobvite, Workable alternatives: Gem, hireEZ
Gemini 3.5 FlashGem alternatives: Juicebox, hireEZ
Perplexity SonarGem, hireEZ alternatives: Fetcher, Findem, SeekOut
Grok 4.1 FastLever alternatives: Gem, Greenhouse, Pin, Workable, hireEZ
Mistral SmallLever alternatives: Guideflow, Intervue, Pin
DeepSeek V4 FlashGem alternatives: Greenhouse, Lever, Workable
Llama 4 Maverickno first choice
Qwen 3.7 FlashGem alternatives: Apollo.io, SeekOut
GLM 4.7 FlashXno first choice
MiniMax M2.5Lever alternatives: Pin, Recruit CRM
Muse Glimmer 30BLever alternatives: Gem, Workable, hireEZ
Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.
By buyer segment
The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.
Small business
Manatal leads by twenty points.
Manatal25%#1 of 12LinkedIn Recruiter5%#6 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Manatal leads by eleven points.
Manatal15%#3 of 10LinkedIn Recruiter4%#7 of 10Enterprise
The order flips: LinkedIn Recruiter leads at enterprise.
LinkedIn Recruiter6%#6 of 12Manatal4%#– of 12What the models said about Manatal
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of three in this category shown.
“Manatal $15-30/mo) add AI/outreach but aren't "limited budget."” Grok 4.1 Fast · budget prompt · soft negative
“Recruit CRM or Manatal offer the best combination of affordability, ease of use, and modern AI features tailored to your size.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · paraphrase prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with either Manatal (if you can afford $15/user) or Zoho Recruit (if you need free features)” MiniMax M2.5 · budget prompt · first choice
What the models said about LinkedIn Recruiter
Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Six of eight in this category shown.
“Overpriced Platforms with Opaque Pricing - LinkedIn Recruiter Corporate: $10,800–$15,000/year with 3-seat minimums” Kimi K2 · negative prompt · hard negative
“Tools like LinkedIn Recruiter cost north of $9K/year per seat—this is justified by network size, but many alternatives provide similar value at a fraction of the cost.” GLM 4.7 FlashX · negative prompt · soft negative
“The gold standard network with the highest candidate-intent database, though it lacks advanced multi-channel outbound automation on its own.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · comparative prompt · soft negative
“### 1. LinkedIn Recruiter - Best for: Enterprise-scale sourcing - Key difference: Direct access to the largest professional network” MiniMax M2.5 · comparative prompt · first choice
“The most widely used platform, leveraging the world's largest professional database (290M+ profiles).” Qwen 3.7 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
“The default industry standard — by far the largest professional network with 1B+ profiles.” DeepSeek V4 Flash · comparative prompt · first choice
Also compared
Gem vs ManatalGem vs LinkedIn RecruiterLever vs ManatalLever vs LinkedIn RecruiterManatal vs hireEZManatal vs Zoho RecruitManatal vs PinManatal vs GreenhousehireEZ vs LinkedIn RecruiterZoho Recruit vs LinkedIn RecruiterPin vs LinkedIn RecruiterLinkedIn Recruiter vs GreenhouseAll twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full Recruiting CRM standing
Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.