VettaraStart with the handoff that is failing
Draw your current process from role brief to hiring decision. Mark where work stops, information disappears or someone has to reconstruct the reasoning. Be specific: “We spend too long checking whether research leads match the brief” is a different problem from “Nobody knows which interview stage a candidate has reached.”
Then name the owner and the output needed at that point. A researcher may need a reviewable evidence note. An interview coordinator may need an accurate stage, availability confirmed by the candidate and an agreed next action. Those needs should drive the evaluation.
What sourcing software can support
Candidate sourcing software helps teams discover and research people who may be relevant to a role. Depending on the product, that can include search, organizing profile information, identifying possible matches and preparing material for recruiter review. Features and source access vary.
Ask which sources are used, how current the information is and what the tool cannot establish. An AI label is not evidence of private-data access or complete market coverage. Greenhouse's sourcing-tool buyer guide similarly recommends checking where your target candidates can be found and whether a tool can reach those sources.
What an ATS can support
An applicant tracking system commonly organizes applications, candidate records and hiring-stage workflows. Many products also offer sourcing, talent pools, communications or connected tools. Greenhouse's ATS overview describes this overlap. The distinction is useful, but it is not a rule that every vendor fits neatly into one box.
Check what your existing system already does before buying another subscription. The unanswered question may be adoption, configuration or ownership rather than a missing feature.
A researched profile is not a pre-qualified hire
A profile may support a claim about a person's experience. It cannot, by itself, establish their current interest in your vacancy, availability to join, permission to contact them or suitability for employment. A match score does not fill those gaps.
Keep sourced information, interpretation and unresolved questions distinct. Missing information should remain unknown rather than silently becoming a negative judgment. Recruiters still need to check the evidence and carry out the appropriate human assessment.
Do not treat promises of better hires, improved diversity or compliance as automatic consequences of adding AI. Each is a separate claim that needs evidence and a properly designed process. This is a software-evaluation guide, not employment or legal advice.
Test one realistic handoff before rollout
Use the same non-confidential role brief when comparing options. Agree what a useful result looks like before the demonstration.
Record what happened, including manual work and unresolved questions. A demonstration of one export is not proof that every ATS integration works. Our suggested checks are:
- Research fit: can you inspect why a person was included and identify weak or outdated evidence?
- Human review: who can challenge a recommendation, and where is their reasoning recorded?
- Transfer: demonstrate the actual export or integration your team intends to use, including required permissions.
- Record ownership: decide which system owns candidate status, corrections and duplicate handling.
- Operational effort: compare review and re-entry work against your current process; do not invent a savings percentage.
Where Vettara fits
Vettara's published focus is brief-led candidate research and evidence-backed shortlist review. Evaluate that workflow against the research gap you actually have. Do not assume it replaces your entire ATS or already connects to every system.
Bring a non-confidential brief and ask to inspect the evidence behind a recommendation, the questions still open and the handoff to your existing process. The goal is a clearer next decision—not simply a bigger list.