Recruiting CRM and sourcing · October 2026 Edition
Pin vs LinkedIn Recruiter
Zero of fourteen models named Pin first on the direct prompt; one named LinkedIn Recruiter. Pin was named by eleven of the fourteen models and LinkedIn Recruiter by fourteen and Pin carries 20 labels and LinkedIn Recruiter 34, so the shares are not directly comparable.
Named in eleven categories this edition.
Named in seven categories this edition.
First-choice share4%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.
Negative rate0%26%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.
Rank in category#6#7A position in a field of 10; printed, not drawn.
Labels2034A count; the two differ.
The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Pin 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 Pin · Gem vs LinkedIn Recruiter · Lever vs Pin
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.
PinFirst choices, of fourteen modelsLinkedIn Recruiter
Direct011 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Paraphrase00
Comparative181 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Budget-constrained213 against LinkedIn Recruiter
Scale-constrained00
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 Pin 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 | | |
Pin LinkedIn Recruiter first choice named as an alternative argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Pin on the left and LinkedIn Recruiter on the right.The direct prompt
The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Pin and LinkedIn Recruiter stood in it.
LinkedIn Recruiter first, Pin not the choice
1 of 14 modelsPin 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
5 of 14 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.Grok 4.1 FastLever alternatives: Gem, Greenhouse, Pin, Workable, hireEZ
Mistral SmallLever alternatives: Guideflow, Intervue, Pin
Kimi K2Gem, hireEZ alternatives: LinkedIn Recruiter, SeekOut
MiniMax M2.5Lever alternatives: Pin, Recruit CRM
GPT-6 LunaGem alternatives: LinkedIn Recruiter, SeekOut
Neither was named
8 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
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
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
Pin leads by twelve points.
Pin17%#2 of 12LinkedIn Recruiter5%#6 of 12Mid-marketThe figures above
Level: the same share of first choices.
Pin4%#6 of 10LinkedIn Recruiter4%#7 of 10Enterprise
The order flips: LinkedIn Recruiter leads at enterprise.
LinkedIn Recruiter6%#6 of 12Pin4%#– of 12What the models said about Pin
No label in this category carried a quote.
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 PinGem vs LinkedIn RecruiterLever vs PinLever vs LinkedIn RecruiterManatal vs PinManatal vs LinkedIn RecruiterhireEZ vs PinhireEZ vs LinkedIn RecruiterZoho Recruit vs PinZoho Recruit vs LinkedIn RecruiterPin vs GreenhouseLinkedIn 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.