ApplicantStack by SwipeClock vs. PeopleFluent

ApplicantStack is an excellent tool for managing applicants and recruitment efforts. It allows multiple users to access data and stay informed of the status of recruitment projects.

Incentivized

PeopleFluent has eliminated the use of paper reviews. It is also eliminated the use of scanning, emailing or interoffice mail. It is a great tool for communication and I highly recommend it. However, in some ways, the product can be improved. Some processes are tied to each other and could function in tandem. For example, while completing the self-review, the employee has to capture multi-raters. If self-review is submitted without listing multi-rater names then multi-rater review has to be captured separately on paper. In my opinion, these two processes can be different. Multi-raters should be added/removed/modified after submitting self-review.

Incentivized

• Customized reporting
• Customized workflow
• Email triggers
• Customized URLs apply links to track the source of candidates, with scraping capabilities for Indeed, LinkedIn and social platforms
• Customized screening questions with scoring functionality

Incentivized

• Self-service tool to add/change configurations without the need for additional professional services
• Amazing implementation team that makes sure your tool is up and running
• Reporting such as compensation statements, budget and total rewards statements available for all cycles
• Configurable feed to our HRIS to make sure data is up to date
• Opportunity to leverage the current tool capabilities within the comp module for other comp processes (e.g. Total Rewards Statements)
• Customer support team is great!

Incentivized

• I believe this stems from integration with our website, but ever since our franchisor changed the layout of our application, we have had issues with people being able to complete our application. We very recently reduced our initial application to contact information only and have seen a twofold increase in the number of completed "applications". Technological ability is not a part of the job we mainly hire for, so this has worked better for us.
• Setting up forms on the onboarding side can be arduous, but it is done so infrequently that it's not a deterrent for us. Once you have a setup that works, you're golden. You do have to use Internet Explorer when modifying forms to be able to save changes for some reason.
• If you don't have someone tech savvy on staff, you will need to contact ApplicantStack staff to make changes to your application. They have been very helpful for me the couple times I have needed help.

Incentivized

• I would advise better filtering options when pulling up candidate profiles, we should have multiple functions when requesting candidates profile.
• Sometimes I get huge projects and need to move more than 20 people, it's a headache moving groups in parts.
• A faster way to verify if a candidate has been double submitted, maybe with a unique ID or email that identifies said candidate prior to going through the whole submission process.
• Stronger cache cookies when session is timed out get kicked out and the process reboots. Sometimes recruiters are pulled in different directions while multitasking.

Incentivized

PeopleFluent continues to develop an already high quality product and works to continually improve the user experience. The different modules integrate well, and the administrative functions are easy to understand and perform resulting in less time spent with KTLO functions. They provide world class customer service and work hard to keep you engaged as a customer.

PeopleFluent seems to have all the functionality one would need, but it can be a bit overwhelming. Depending on the client implementation, it can be downright confusing and not intuitive. My 6 rating comes from the fact that it seems like the system can be configured to actually be confusing and not make sense. I think a VMS should be set up not to allow a customer to configure it in such a way as to not really work, or to allow users to circumvent steps. I also really don't like the "organization key" that needs to be entered every time you log in. Why is a login and password good enough for 99% of the systems out there, but PeopleFluent requires an extra field?

Incentivized

ApplicantStack support is outstanding. Any issue that I have ever encountered is handled within a day by their support team. There are very rarely issues that come up, and they typically stem from a user error, but the ApplicantStack team is always ready to help and solve the issues that arise.

Incentivized

In my experience, the support team was very prompt and helpful. They had good subject matter expertise and were able to troubleshoot immediately. At times we wanted some enhancements but it was not possible due to product limitations. But, the support team was helpful in suggesting alternatives for our requirements. The customer support staff was also very polite and friendly.

Incentivized

Applicantstack offered a high level of customization for us, at a price point their competitors couldn't touch. While it's got some room for improvement in reporting, we've been able to fill every gap with custom programming at an incredibly reasonable rate.

Incentivized

Out of the VMS's listed, I'd say PeopleFluent is solidly in the middle. Fieldglass and IQN are probably easier to navigate and more modern looking, and I definitely don't run into the login problems with them. Beeline and PRO Wand are probably on par with PeopleFluent. They have their plusses and minuses in terms of navigation and ease of use. Covendis is definitely worse than PeopleFluent. Covendis is a mess - very difficult to navigate, not intuitive at all with terrible workflow. Again, I didn't select PeopleFluent; my client did, and I have chosen to work with them, therefore I work with PeopleFluent.

Incentivized

• ROI achieved within 2-3 months of using ApplicantStack.
• ApplicantStack has positively affected our time to fill ratio and improved candidate communication.

Incentivized

• I do believe that goal setting and the workflow of following up, going through the process yearly is as good as you make it. If you set good goals, or help your team make good goals then the experience can go well. Otherwise it's just another thing that an employee is doing to make their manager happy.
• I am not sure the cost of the product, but if it is really expensive I am not sure that we are getting fully what we should be for what the product offers. Make sure you are using what is offered.

Incentivized