Recruiting software pricing and AI recruiting software pricing for hireEZ, SeekOut, Gem, Fetcher, Juicebox and Loxo

AI recruiting software costs roughly $100 to $500 per seat per month on the tiers you can buy with a card, and $3,500 to $15,000 per seat per year on the tiers you have to negotiate. The published entry prices are Juicebox Starter at $99 a seat on annual billing, Gem Essentials for staffing firms at $99, Fetcher self-serve at $115, Pin Professional at $135, SeekOut Recruit Core at $149, Loxo Core at $149 and hireEZ from $494.

Above those tiers the market stops publishing. Buyer-reported contract data compiled by procurement marketplaces puts median annual spend around $11,000 for Fetcher, $13,000 for hireEZ, $20,000 for SeekOut and $25,000 for Gem, with individual deals in each category running from single-seat contracts near $6,000 up past $50,000 for large teams. Those medians blend very different team sizes, so treat them as a sanity check on a quote rather than a price you should expect. Several of these vendors are broken down plan by plan on their own pages, including Fetcher pricing, SeekOut pricing and Gem pricing.

The number that matters more than any of these is cost per filled role, and it depends almost entirely on how many roles the license actually serves. A $170 seat that fills two roles a year costs $1,020 a hire. A $12,000 seat that fills twenty costs $600. Recruiters comparing monthly prices across vendors are usually comparing the wrong denominator, because the seat price says nothing about throughput.

One more structural point. Sourcing platforms price seats, job boards price applications, agencies price a percentage of salary, and a small group of newer tools price the open role. Those four models produce wildly different bills for identical hiring, which is why a like-for-like comparison has to start by fixing the hiring load rather than the unit.

Because the price depends on variables the vendor wants to discover before quoting: how many seats, how many contact credits, which modules, whether an ATS integration is in scope, and how much you are already spending on the tools the platform hopes to replace. hireEZ says this openly on its own pricing page, describing enterprise pricing as configured to the stack it replaces rather than a flat per-seat rate times headcount.

That framing is honest about the mechanic and it is also why two companies of the same size get very different quotes. Discounts of 15% to 25% for multi-year or prepaid terms are widely reported in this category, and Fetcher deals specifically show an average negotiated discount around 24% off list. If you accept a first quote you are almost certainly paying more than the buyer next to you.

The practical consequence for a buyer is that the published entry tier is the only price you can trust without a call, and it is usually deliberately limited so that the tier you actually need requires that call. SeekOut Recruit Core is one account with three seats. Gem publishes only its under-10-employee program. Loxo now publishes both Core and Professional and quotes only Enterprise. The published number is a real price, but it is rarely the one you end up on.

There is a reasonable way to work with this. Get quotes from two vendors in the same week, ask each for the price in writing including onboarding and credit overage rates, ask what the renewal uplift is, and ask what happens if you reduce seats mid-term. Those four questions move more money than the negotiation on the headline rate does.

On published prices, Juicebox Starter at $99 per seat per month on annual billing is the lowest paid entry point among the major AI sourcing platforms, followed by Fetcher self-serve at $115 and SeekOut Recruit Core at $149. Juicebox has a limited free tier and Loxo, SeekOut and hireEZ all run trials, so the cheapest way to see whether this category helps you at all is to run one real role through a free plan before you buy anything.

Cheapest is the wrong target for most buyers, though, and it is worth being blunt about why. The entry tiers are throttled on the resource that determines whether the tool works, which is verified contact data. Five hundred contact credits sounds generous until you run a competitive engineering search where you need to reach two hundred people to book eight conversations. Buying the cheapest tier and then paying overage twice a quarter costs more than the tier above it.

A better filter is to work backwards from the roles. Count the open roles you expect to run in the next twelve months, estimate how many candidates you need to contact per role from your own historical reply rate, and check that number against each tier credit allowance. That calculation eliminates about half the options in five minutes and it is the one thing no vendor pricing page does for you.

It is also fair to say when this category is not the answer. If you hire two people a year, none of these platforms will pay for themselves against posting the role and asking your network. The tools here earn their money on continuous or hard-to-fill hiring, where the alternative is a recruiter spending most of a week per role on search and outreach.

Every vendor in the table above sells one of two things. A search seat gives a person access to a candidate index and a monthly allowance of messages or contact reveals, and that person does the work. A delivery model puts the work on the vendor side and charges for output, which is how agencies have always billed and how the newer agent tools price.

Seat pricing is predictable and it rewards you for having recruiters with time. It punishes lumpy hiring, because a seat costs the same in a quiet month, and it punishes small teams through seat minimums. Credit pricing tracks usage more fairly but makes budgeting harder, and overage rates are usually worse than the rate inside your plan. A third model is spreading: pricing each AI agent separately, which is how Metaview pricing works, with Sourcing at $100 or $300 per user, Notetaker at $60 and Application Review billed on review volume.

HireAgent plans scale with seats, open roles and sourcing volume, because the open role is the unit the hiring manager cares about. You give the agent a structured brief, it sources matching candidates including passive ones, screens and ranks them against your criteria into a shortlist that shows the evidence behind every score, drafts personalized outreach and books the interviews that come back. Published plans are $299 a month for one seat and up to 3 open roles, $799 for three seats, up to 10 roles and ATS integration, and $1,999 for ten seats at higher volume. A human reviews every shortlist and makes every hiring decision.

None of this makes seat tools wrong. Plenty of teams run a sourcing platform alongside an agent, using the platform for ad-hoc research and the agent for the repeatable pipeline work. The question worth asking of any quote is simple: for this money, how many hours come off my team, and how many roles does it cover before I have to buy something else.