# What Claude (Anthropic) with web search answered for applicant tracking systems (remote teams) on 2026-09-13

## In short

On 2026-09-13, Claude (Anthropic) with web search was asked "best applicant tracking systems for remote teams". It named 12 brands, in this order: Ashby, Greenhouse, Gem, Workable, mid-market, Deel.

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Question | best applicant tracking systems for remote teams |
| Asked on | 2026-09-13 |
| Engine | Claude (Anthropic) with web search |
| Model | claude-opus-5 |
| Brands named | 12 |
| Sources cited | 8 |
| Audience | remote teams |
| Coverage | Coverage: Claude (Anthropic) with web search. Other engines not included. |
| Last verified | 2026-09-13 |

Page: https://bikoosh.com/answers/s/applicant-tracking-systems-remote-teams-2026-09-13
Coverage: Claude (Anthropic) with web search. Other engines not included.

## The answer, as recorded

Asked on 2026-09-13 through Claude (Anthropic) with web search (model claude-opus-5).

> For a distributed team, the thing that actually separates one ATS from another isn't "remote features" - it's timezone-aware scheduling, async interview/feedback collection, and whether hiring across borders is a headache. Here's who I'd actually name, roughly in the order I'd suggest them:
> 
> **1. Ashby** - my default recommendation for most remote-first companies in the 50-500 range. The scheduling engine handles multi-timezone, multi-interviewer panels better than anything else I'd name, and analytics, CRM, and scheduling are bundled rather than sold as add-ons (Greenhouse and iCIMS charge separately for pieces of this). Starts around $400/month. It's specifically called out as well-suited to remote/distributed teams needing advanced scheduling. ([Gem](https://www.gem.com/blog/best-applicant-tracking-system), [Leon Consulting](https://leonstaff.com/blogs/ats-pricing-comparison-2026/))
> 
> **2. Greenhouse** - pick this if structured hiring matters more than scheduling elegance. Scorecards, interview kits, and approval workflows enforce consistency, which matters disproportionately when your interviewers never meet each other and can't calibrate over lunch. Best fit is 250+ employees w

## Brands named, in the order the engine gave

| Position | Brand | How it was named |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ashby | recommended |
| 2 | Greenhouse | compared |
| 3 | Gem | compared |
| 4 | Workable | mentioned |
| 5 | mid-market | mentioned |
| 6 | Deel | mentioned |
| 7 | Rippling | compared |
| 8 | Teamtailor | mentioned |
| 9 | Breezy | mentioned |
| 10 | Breezy HR | mentioned |
| 11 | you're | mentioned |
| 12 | Rippling Recruiting | mentioned |

## Sources the engine cited

- https://www.gem.com/blog/best-applicant-tracking-system (vendor)
- https://leonstaff.com/blogs/ats-pricing-comparison-2026/ (other)
- https://www.outsail.co/post/greenhouse-vs-lever-vs-ashby (other)
- https://softwarefinder.com/resources/best-ats-for-startups (other)
- https://grouglobal.com/blog/deel-vs-rippling (other)
- https://www.outsail.co/post/rippling-vs-deel-vs-remote (other)
- https://www.rippling.com/blog/rippling-recruiting-review (vendor)
- https://ventureharbour.com/best-free-ats/ (other)

The question page: https://bikoosh.com/answers/q/applicant-tracking-systems/remote-teams

Answer Watch records what one AI answer engine said on one date, nothing more. Each page names the engine and the model, carries the date the question was asked, and lists the brands that appeared in the answer in the order the engine gave them, with the sources it cited. It is a measurement, not a ranking, not a recommendation and not a claim about the world. Brands that did not appear in an answer are not named on any public page. Coverage: Claude (Anthropic) with web search. Other engines not included.