Compare · Loxo
Loxo alternative that runs the search instead of storing it
Loxo built something genuinely useful for staffing and search firms. It calls itself a talent intelligence platform, and it packs an ATS, a recruiting CRM, a people search engine, contact data and outreach into one system of record, so an agency does not need six tools to make one placement. Loxo says its search covers more than 800 million candidates with verified personal emails and mobile numbers. Its pricing page lists a free single-user tier and a Basic plan at 169 dollars per user per month, with Professional and Enterprise quoted by sales. If you run an agency and you need one place to track clients, jobs, submissions and placements, Loxo is a serious product and, for that job, likely a better answer than we are.
The reason recruiters compare Loxo alternatives is that a platform still needs a person to work it. Loxo gives your recruiters an excellent search box, a sequence builder and a place to log what happened. Your team still runs the search, reads the profiles, decides who is actually good, writes the messages and chases the calendar. HireAgent is not another platform to work. It is an autonomous recruiter agent: give it a role and it sources candidates, screens and ranks them against your structured criteria into an explainable scored shortlist with a written rationale per name, drafts personalized outreach and schedules the interviews. Screening is criteria-based to reduce bias, candidates receive clear AI disclosure and consent is respected, and a human makes every final hiring decision. Plenty of agencies keep Loxo as the system of record and let the agent do the work that gets logged into it.
Sourcing, screening & outreach · evidence on every match · you decide
Press Source candidates to run the agent on this role.
→
Ranked shortlist ·
Loxo is an agency ATS, CRM and sourcing platform that your recruiters operate, while HireAgent is an autonomous agent that runs the role itself and returns an explainable scored shortlist for a human to decide on.
Side by side
Loxo vs HireAgent, honestly
A fair look at what each does well. Both are capable tools. Here is where they differ.
| What matters | HireAgent | Loxo |
|---|---|---|
| Core job | An agent that sources, screens, ranks, writes outreach and schedules | Talent intelligence platform: ATS, CRM, sourcing, outreach and data in one |
| Agency system of record | Not an agency ATS or CRM; it works alongside the one you have | Loxo wins here: clients, jobs, submissions and placements tracked end to end |
| Candidate database | Sources per role; the product is the finished shortlist, not the index | Loxo wins here: its own people search with contact data at large scale |
| Who does the work | The agent works the role for you | Your recruiters drive the search, the sequences and the follow-up |
| Screening and ranking | Structured criteria-based scoring with a written rationale per candidate | Search, filters and AI summaries; your recruiter still evaluates and ranks |
| Pricing model | Paid plans for the whole agent workflow, no free plan | Free single-user tier and a published per-seat Basic plan; upper tiers quoted |
| Final decision | A human makes every hire | A human makes every hire |
Comparison reflects general, publicly understood positioning. Capabilities change, so check each product for the latest.
Why teams pick HireAgent
One agent that sources, screens and shortlists for every role
Keep the system of record, replace the grind
This is not a rip and replace pitch. If your placements, client records and submissions live in Loxo, leave them there. What Loxo cannot do is work the req for you: someone on your team still opens the search, scrolls the results, guesses who is worth a message and writes it. HireAgent takes that shift. It runs sourcing, screening, ranking, outreach and scheduling on the role, and you get a shortlist to submit rather than a search to run. Recruiters keep the client relationship, the negotiation and the judgment calls, which is the part of agency work that was never the bottleneck anyway.
Ranked with a reason, not just found
A people search returns matches. It does not tell you which five of the two hundred are actually worth your client relationship. HireAgent scores every candidate against your structured criteria and writes the rationale next to the score, so when a client asks why this person is number one you have an answer built on evidence rather than a recruiter hunch. That is also what makes the shortlist defensible when a hiring process gets questioned, because the criteria are job-related and written down before the scoring happens, not reverse-engineered afterwards. For a staffing firm, that same rationale doubles as the submittal note your client actually reads.
Cost that tracks the work, not the seats
Per-seat platform pricing charges for access, so a small agency pays for licenses whether or not anyone has time to work the pipeline that week. HireAgent is priced against the agent workflow it runs on your roles, which suits a lean team that needs more output than it has recruiter hours. There is no free plan; you are buying a recruiter that works, not a login.
Good questions
Loxo vs HireAgent, answered
More comparisons
See how HireAgent compares
LinkedIn Recruiter alternative
An agent that sources, screens, writes outreach and schedules, not a search seat you drive.
vs SeekOutSeekOut alternative
Not a talent-search tool you steer, an agent that delivers the finished shortlist.
vs hireEZhireEZ alternative
No workflows to configure and run, an agent that runs the funnel for you.
vs FetcherFetcher alternative
On-demand and end to end, not human-curated batches on someone else's timeline.
vs GemGem alternative
An agent that runs the pipeline, not a CRM and sequences you manage.
vs ParadoxParadox alternative
An agent that goes and finds the candidates, not a chat assistant that waits for them to apply.
See how HireAgent sources and shortlists your candidates
One agent: a role in, a match-scored shortlist out, with per-criteria scores, evidence-linked rationale, personalized outreach and scheduled interviews. The agent does the legwork, you make the hire.
Structured criteria · evidence on every match · ranked shortlist · you make the call