--- title: "AI in Recruiting: Does It Improve Quality of Hire? | Capterra" description: "We asked 10 recruiting software vendors what their AI actually improves. 8 of 10 report faster hiring — only 4 can prove better quality of hire." source_url: "https://www.capterra.com/resources/ai-in-recruiting-quality-of-hire/" page_type: "article" language: "en" --- # Does AI in Recruiting Software Make Better Hires? Written by: Harsh Choubey Harsh ChoubeyAuthor Marketing Specialist Experience I am a Marketing Specialist at Capterra, where I have been handling content promotions and driving vendor co-marketing initia... [See bio & all articles](https://www.capterra.com/resources/author/harsh-choubey/) and reviewer: Emilie Audubert Emilie AudubertReviewer Content Analyst Experience Since joining Capterra in 2021, I've dedicated myself to becoming a trusted thought leader in the B2B software market, specializin... [See bio & all articles](https://www.capterra.com/resources/author/emilie-audubert/) Published August 31, 2026 14 min read Table of Contents - [How far has AI recruiting software reached in hiring?](#how-far-has-ai-recruitment-software-reached-across-the-hiring-funnel) - [Where Does AI in Recruiting Deliver the Most Value?](#measuring-quality-of-hire-where-does-ai-in-recruiting-deliver-the-most-value) - [AI Recruiting's Clearest Wins](#time-to-hire-and-recruiter-hours-ai-recruitings-clearest-wins) - [Where AI Recruiting Software's ROI Data Runs Thin](#where-ai-recruiting-softwares-roi-data-runs-thin) - [Does AI recruiting software require human oversight?](#does-ai-recruiting-software-require-human-oversight) - [Biggest Challenges of AI Recruiting Software Adoption](#what-are-the-biggest-challenges-of-ai-recruiting-software-adoption) - [Where is Agentic AI in Recruiting Today?](#where-is-agentic-ai-in-recruiting-today) - [What's the future of AI in recruiting?](#whats-the-future-of-ai-in-recruiting) - [Frequently asked questions (FAQs)](#frequently-asked-questions-faqs) AI in recruiting software today is already screening resumes, matching candidates to jobs, and helping schedule interviews. But its impact on hiring depends on how software vendors apply these capabilities and measure their outcomes. So, we asked the providers themselves. As a marketing specialist at Capterra, I surveyed 10 AI [recruiting software](https://www.capterra.com/recruiting-software/) providers about the capabilities they offer today, the outcomes they measure, where human decision-making remains essential, and what they expect AI to handle next.\* Here’s every provider I surveyed, listed alphabetically: | Provider | Known for | | --- | --- | | [AssessTEAM](https://www.capterra.com/p/153662/AssessTEAM-Employee-evaluation-on-the-cloud/) | Performance management with 360 feedback and project-based evaluation. | | [Avanti](https://www.capterra.com/p/199859/Avanti/) | Canadian full-suite HCM — payroll, HR, time, recruiting, and learning, with AI built in. | | [Cezanne HR](https://www.capterra.com/p/12452/Cezanne-HR/) | Modular HR and payroll for mid-sized international organizations. | | [ClayHR](https://www.capterra.com/p/153907/BizMerlin/) | Configurable hire-to-retire HCM with agentic AI across recruiting, performance, skills, and employee development. | | [Definitiv](https://www.capterra.com/p/210171/Definitiv/) (Access Group) | All-in-one cloud-based payroll and workforce management platform | | [Evalu-8 HR](https://www.capterra.com/p/163300/Evalu-8/) | All-in-one UK employee management including training, health, and safety. | | [Homebase](https://www.capterra.com/p/153076/Homebase/) | Scheduling, time tracking, and hiring for hourly teams. | | [HR Partner](https://www.capterra.com/p/147749/HR-Partner/) | All-in-one HRIS built for businesses with 20-500 employees. | | [Infor Human Resources](https://www.capterra.com/p/227469/Infor-HCM/) | Enterprise cloud HCM for talent and workforce processes. | | [Proliant](https://www.capterra.com/p/187093/Proliant/) | Payroll, tax filing, and benefits administration for hourly workforces. | Key findings - **AI is most established in resume screening and candidate matching:** Resume screening is live at 8 of 10 providers, while candidate matching is live at 7, making these the most mature AI recruiting workflows surveyed. - **Speed is AI's clearest measurable gain:** Eight out of 10 providers report faster time-to-hire and saving recruiter hours. These are the most consistently reported improvements across the survey. - **Humans remain in control of final hiring decisions:** No provider fully automates the final hire recommendation, and 7 keep that decision entirely human. AI is most often used to support decisions rather than make them independently. - **Agentic AI in recruiting has already moved into production:** Six out of 10 providers surveyed in this report have autonomous recruiting agents live in production, showing that agentic AI has moved beyond experimentation into active recruiting workflows. ## How far has AI recruitment software reached across the hiring funnel? AI recruiting software peaks early in the funnel, with human oversight taking over as hiring moves forward. Here's how the 10 providers' status of AI integration looks across the funnel stages, from screening resumes to predicting long-term hire quality. **Top of the funnel:** _AI has become the default here as nearly every provider automates the paperwork stage._ - **Resume screening:** The most universal capability in the survey, as eight providers (HR Partner, Evalu-8 HR Software, Homebase, Cezanne HR, Avanti Software, Infor, Definitiv, and ClayHR) already run it live, while the remaining provider is testing in beta.  - **Candidate sourcing:** Three out of ten providers (Cezanne HR, Definitiv, and ClayHR) have it live, Homebase is in beta, and the remaining six sit on the roadmap or have no plans at all. **Middle of the funnel:** _AI adoption holds for scoring tasks, then drops fast once a candidate enters the conversation directly._ - **Candidate matching:** Seven providers (HR Partner, Homebase, Cezanne HR, AssessTEAM, Avanti Software, Definitiv, and ClayHR) already have this live, with two providers in beta and one on the roadmap. - **Skills assessment scoring:** Half the group scores work samples directly today: Homebase, AssessTEAM, Definitiv, ClayHR, and HR Partner. - **AI-run interviews:** The same five providers largely carry this forward. Homebase, AssessTEAM, Avanti Software, Definitiv, and ClayHR all run AI-assisted interviews live - **Candidate chatbots:** The outlier of the funnel. Only Definitiv runs this live, since ongoing dialogue with a candidate is the least transactional, most relationship-dependent task in hiring. **Bottom of the funnel:** _where the payoff is proving AI actually improves who gets hired, not just how fast._ - **Onboarding hand-off:** Only three providers have reached this stage: Homebase, Avanti Software, and Definitiv. - **Predictive quality-of-hire or retention analytics:** The least mature capability overall. Just four providers, Homebase, Avanti Software, Infor, and ClayHR, have live analytics here, the one stage that would let AI prove it improves hiring, not just speed. Trista Tolkacz, manager of customer success at [Infor](https://www.infor.com), locates the problem earlier in the process: “Most quality loss in hiring doesn’t happen at the decision point, it happens earlier, in the noise. Qualified candidates get buried under application volume, internal talent goes unsurfaced, and screening quality varies by whoever has bandwidth that day.” Further, Devan Sabaratnam, founder and CTO at [HR Partner](https://www.hrpartner.io), sees the AI recruitment software as a benefit for small teams: It enables the hiring team to focus on the best qualified candidates via early vetting of completely unsuitable applications … thus maximum time to properly evaluate stronger candidates.” **Takeaway:** The gap is stark: resume screening and matching sit at 7–8 of 10 providers live, while onboarding hand-off and predictive quality-of-hire analytics sit at just 3–4. AI has taken hold in the paperwork stages of hiring; proving it improves who gets hired, not just how fast, is still the unbuilt half of the funnel.\* ## Measuring Quality of Hire: Where Does AI in Recruiting Deliver the Most Value? **AI's clearest and most consistent impact is speed.** Eight of 10 providers report faster time-to-hire, with 5 seeing reductions of 25% or more. The same pattern appears in recruiter workload: 8 providers report saving recruiter hours, with 7 saving at least a quarter of the time spent on each hire.\* This consistency across both measures makes time the strongest measurable outcome in the survey — and the clearest indication of where AI is delivering value today. **Quality of hire, on the other hand, is complex to measure because the evidence comes after the decision.** Seven of 10 providers track new-hire retention at 90 days or 12 months, making it the most widely used post-hire quality signal in the survey. The other measures become less common as providers look for stronger evidence of how well a hire performs after joining. | Post-hire signal | Providers | | --- | --- | | New-hire retention at 90 days / 12 months | 7 | | Post-hire performance ratings linked to hiring data | 4 | | Hiring-manager satisfaction with the hire | 3 | | Time-to-productivity / ramp time | 3 | | Offer-acceptance and candidate-experience only | 3 | | Early or regretted attrition flags | 2 | | Composite quality-of-hire score | 1 | | No post-hire measurement at all | 1 | **_Number of providers measuring the signal (multi select ; n = 10) -_** Source: Capterra 2026 recruiting vendor survey \[1\] **Retention is the clearest starting point for gauging quality after the hire.** Evalu-8 HR Software, Homebase, AssessTEAM, ProLiant, Avanti Software, Infor, and ClayHR all track whether new hires remain with the organization for 90 days or 12 months. It provides a consistent outcome that providers can monitor without requiring additional performance data. The picture sharpens as providers connect hiring decisions to what happens on the job. Four of 10 providers, Cezanne HR, AssessTEAM, Infor, and ClayHR, link post-hire performance ratings to hiring data. Three follow hiring-manager satisfaction, and three look at time-to-productivity or ramp time. Only two flag early or regretted attrition, while AssessTEAM is the only provider combining multiple indicators into a composite quality-of-hire score. The pattern reveals a clear measurement gap: providers have more visibility into whether a hire stays than whether that hire succeeds. One likely explanation: retention is comparatively objective and easy to standardize, while employee success is often more subjective and dependent on performance frameworks, manager judgment, and role-specific expectations. Three providers, ProLiant, Avanti Software, and Definitiv, report offer acceptance and candidate experience data, but these outcomes reflect the hiring process rather than what happens after someone's hired. One provider reports no such follow-up data at all.  Tracking quality is only the first step. The more important question is whether AI-assisted hiring is actually improving what it tracks. **Four of 10 providers report a measured improvement in quality of hire.** Cezanne HR reports an improvement of more than 50%, while AssessTEAM, HR Partner, and ClayHR report improvements of 10–25%. Josh McNicholas, Associate Director at [Evalu-8 HR Software](https://evalu-8.com/), describes the evidence needed to establish a stronger connection between AI and hiring outcomes: "What would convince me is consistent evidence that AI-assisted hires perform better, remain with the organization longer, and succeed across a range of candidate backgrounds, without introducing unfair bias." Buyers are moving toward a similar definition of recruiting success. Capterra's research points in the same direction: high-performing teams are shifting their focus from raw speed to decision quality, tracking outcomes like mis-hire rates, internal mobility, and how well they can verify candidate skills.\*\* **Takeaway:** Quality of hire remains more complex to measure and prove than hiring speed. Four providers report an improvement, but most still lack the depth of post-hire measurement needed to demonstrate whether AI-assisted hiring consistently produces better outcomes. ## Time-to-Hire and Recruiter Hours: AI Recruiting's Clearest Wins **Providers are measuring AI's efficiency gains in two places: how quickly they can fill a role and how much recruiter time the process requires.** While Time-to-hire improved at 8 of 10 providers, with 5 reporting reductions of 25% or more, Recruiter hours show a similar pattern, with 8 providers reporting savings and 7 saving at least a quarter of the time spent on each hire.\* | Outcome metric | Improved >50% | Improved 25–50% | Improved 10–25% | Improved <10% | No measurable change | Not tracked | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Recruiter hours | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | | Time-to-hire | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Candidate drop-off | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | | Quality of hire | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | | Cost-per-hire | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | _**Number of providers reporting each improvement range (single choice per provider; n=10)**_ - Source: Capterra 2026 recruiting vendor survey \[2\] The consistency across both measures matters. **AI is reducing the time it takes to move candidates through the hiring process while also cutting the manual hours recruiters spend getting that work done.** For providers seeing the largest gains, the impact reaches 25% or more of the hiring cycle or recruiter time per hire. Julie Lally, chief product officer at [Cezanne HR](https://cezannehr.com/), puts the value of that time into perspective:\*\*\* "Cezanne Recruitment's AI-powered platform helps organisations make better hires by significantly reducing the time it takes to identify and engage the right candidates. Research shows that top talent is often hired within 10 days, yet the national average time-to-hire is around 75 days. \[...\] The real value of AI is not in making hiring decisions, but in removing the administrative and data-processing burden from recruiters. \[...\] The best outcomes come when AI augments human judgement, enabling recruiters and hiring managers to make faster, more informed decisions while retaining full control over the final hiring choice.” Every day spent inside that gap creates another opportunity for a strong candidate to move to a faster employer. Reducing repetitive work can help recruiters keep hiring processes moving while giving them more time for candidate evaluation and hiring-manager interactions. The buyer's survey points in the same direction. Our recent HR trends survey found that 62% of organizations expect to grow their workforce this year, while AI is increasingly being used to handle repetitive tasks rather than replace roles.\*\* As hiring demand grows, the value of freeing recruiter capacity becomes more tangible. **Takeaway:** AI is freeing recruiter time and helping organizations move faster as hiring demand grows. Across this survey, speed is the clearest and most consistently reported AI outcome.\* ## Where AI Recruiting Software's ROI Data Runs Thin AI can make parts of recruiting faster and easier to measure. Time-to-hire, recruiter hours, screening volume, and other workflow metrics give providers relatively clear ways to show where the technology is being used and what it is changing. The picture becomes less consistent when the question moves further down the funnel: **Does AI reduce the cost of each hire or keep more qualified candidates from dropping out?** Cost-per-hire is particularly difficult to measure. Seven of 10 providers do not track it at all. Among the three that do, Homebase and Avanti Software report measurable improvements of 25–50%, while the third tracks the metric but reports no measurable change.\* Candidate drop-off provides more evidence, but it is far from consistent. Definitiv and ClayHR report improvements of more than 50%, while Homebase and Cezanne HR report gains of 10–25%. AssessTEAM reports an improvement of less than 10%. Three providers report no measurable change, and two do not track the outcome. The contrast between these measures points to a broader challenge in evaluating AI recruiting software. **Providers have more evidence for what AI does inside the recruiting workflow than for how those changes affect the broader economics of hiring.** Cost-per-hire remains largely unmeasured, while candidate drop-off results vary substantially across providers. David Owen Cord, CEO at [Avanti Software](https://www.avanti.ca/), connects the efficiency gains from AI to the work recruiters can spend more time doing: "By removing tedious tasks, AI-powered recruiting software enables recruiters and hiring managers to spend more time on the nuanced but mission critical elements of identifying and validating the right hires: understanding a candidate's motivation and capabilities, assessing core values and cultural alignment, building meaningful relationships, and applying human judgment." **Takeaway:** AI recruiting software is generating measurable efficiency gains, but providers have less evidence of its downstream financial and funnel impact. Cost-per-hire remains largely untracked, while candidate drop-off results are mixed, leaving a significant gap between AI adoption and the industry's ability to measure its broader recruiting impact. ## Does AI recruiting software require human oversight? The answer is yes, and how much depends on how consequential the decision is. **The closer AI gets to a final hiring call, the more likely a human remains in control.** Screening rejections use an "AI recommends, human decides" model at 8 of 10 providers.\* For final hire recommendations, 7 of 10 providers keep the decision entirely human, whereas 3 use AI to recommend while a human decides, and none fully automate the final call. | Hiring decision | Human only | AI recommends, human decides | Fully automated | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | _Final hire recommendation_ | 7 | 3 | 0 | | _Advancing a candidate to interview_ | 6 | 3 | 1 | | _Assessment scoring_ | 5 | 2 | 3 | | _Ranking and shortlisting_ | 2 | 7 | 1 | | _Rejecting at screening_ | 2 | 8 | 0 | **_Number of providers per decision point (single choice per provider, per decision point; n = 10)_** \- Source: Capterra 2026 recruiting vendor survey \[3\] The pattern changes as decisions become more consequential. AI recommends screening outcomes at 8 of 10 providers, but advancement to interviews is human-only at 6 of 10. Final hiring recommendations are even more tightly controlled, with every provider retaining human involvement. Kristy Gilham, Director of Product at [Definitiv](https://www.theaccessgroup.com/) explains the reasoning: "What AI can do is make sure every candidate is held to the same standard, every time, and then hand the decision back to the person best placed to make it. So the value is not really about automating expertise. It is about protecting it." Capterra’s research reflects the same preference from buyers: high-performing teams treat AI outputs as directional signals rather than final decisions.\*\* **Takeaway:** No provider fully automates the final hire, but 8 of 10 let AI make the call at screening. The stakes, not the technology, set the boundary.\* ## What Are the Biggest Challenges of AI Recruiting Software Adoption? **The biggest obstacles to AI adoption sit around trust, readiness, and proof.** Candidate distrust of AI evaluation, limited AI fluency inside talent acquisition teams, and difficulty proving ROI beyond speed metrics each received five provider selections, making them the most common barriers in the survey.\* | Adoption barrier | Selections | | --- | --- | | Candidate distrust of AI evaluation | 5 | | Limited AI fluency inside talent acquisition teams | 5 | | Proving ROI beyond speed metrics | 5 | | Regulatory uncertainty (state, federal, EU) | 3 | | Explainability — recruiters won't act on scores they can't interrogate | 2 | | Legal exposure concerns from customers' counsel | 2 | | Customers' fragmented or low-quality hiring data | 2 | **_Number of providers citing this barrier (multi-select, up to 2; n = 10) -_** Source: Capterra 2026 recruiting vendor survey \[4\] Candidate trust is particularly important because it can affect the experience before AI has a chance to demonstrate its value. Ben Tuttle, product manager at [ProLiant](https://www.proliant.com/), describes the challenge: "AI usage increases a Recruiters ability to communicate with and evaluate candidates with greater speed but it is too early to tell if AI correlates to a better employee. Candidates tend to dislike AI during hiring and it tends to give a negative perception of the company, especially in the SMB market." Team readiness is another recurring issue. Five providers cite limited AI fluency inside talent acquisition teams, suggesting that adoption depends partly on whether recruiters know how to interpret and act on AI outputs. The third major barrier is proving ROI beyond speed. Rajat Mathur, Sales Director at [AssessTEAM](https://www.assessteam.com/), connects that challenge directly to the quality question: "AI-powered recruiting helps organizations make better hires when it's backed by performance data, not just faster resume screening. The real value comes from linking hiring decisions with post-hire performance, retention, and AI-powered candidate validation." Regulatory uncertainty also appears in the responses, cited by 3 of 10 providers. That adds another layer of caution as organizations expand AI into candidate evaluation. Buyers report related concerns. Software Advice found that organizations using AI in recruiting face higher compliance challenges than non-AI users, 23% versus 15%. The rise of "skillfishing" is also pushing teams to verify candidate credentials earlier in the process.\*\* **Takeaway:** Trust, fluency, and proof each stall a third of providers, more than regulation does. The barrier isn't the technology, it's whether people trust it, understand it, and can prove it works.\* ## Where is Agentic AI in Recruiting Today? **Agentic recruiting is already moving into the real world.** Six of 10 providers have autonomous recruiting agents live with customers, while one is in beta and three are still evaluating the technology.\* Early adoption is focused on tasks where speed and responsiveness can directly improve the candidate and recruiter experience.  Dr. Amrinder Arora, CEO at [ClayHR](https://www.clayhr.com/), reports: "The candidates report much faster decision times, and the hiring managers + recruiters report much higher level of satisfaction with their second round (human led) interviews due to interview support tools available to them." Matan Chen Zion, senior product marketing manager at [Homebase](https://www.joinhomebase.com/), describes a similar benefit on the candidate side: "Hiring Assistant screens candidates 24/7 via live conversational AI, which means applicants get responded to in minutes rather than days. Faster response = less candidate drop-off, which expands the effective pool businesses actually choose from." ### Where is agentic recruiting headed next? The next wave of adoption is likely to extend across more of the recruiting funnel. Six of 10 providers expect AI to fully handle resume screening and shortlisting by 2027. Five expect AI to take over interview scheduling and coordination. | Workflow | Providers expecting full autonomy | | --- | --- | | Resume screening and shortlisting | 6 | | Interview scheduling and coordination | 5 | | None — every consequential step keeps a human in the loop | 5 | | Sourcing and first candidate outreach | 3 | | First-round interviews or assessments | 3 | | Offer preparation and negotiation support | 2 | | Rejection decisions | 1 | | Candidate communication end-to-end | 1 | **_Number of providers naming the activity (multi-select, up to 3; n = 10) -_** Source: Capterra 2026 recruiting vendor survey \[5\] The boundaries are clearer around high-stakes decisions. Five providers say no consequential hiring step should happen without a human in the loop. Only one expects AI to fully automate rejection decisions. **Takeaway:** Agentic recruiting is shifting from experimentation to execution. Providers are already using AI agents for repetitive, time-sensitive tasks and expect them to take on more of the recruiting workflow by 2027. ## What's the future of AI in recruiting? **AI recruiting tools have already proven that they can make hiring faster. The next test is whether it can make the outcome better.** The provider data shows a clear progression. AI recruiting tools are reducing time-to-hire and recruiter workload today. It is increasingly handling screening, matching, communication, and other repetitive tasks. Agentic capabilities are moving into production, but human oversight remains strongest where decisions carry greater consequences. Quality is where the evidence becomes less certain. Only four providers report measurable improvement in quality of hire, and six do not track the outcome at all. That leaves a clear opportunity for providers to connect hiring data with what happens after the hire — performance, productivity, retention, and other indicators of success. **Even the providers themselves are split on the question.** Asked directly whether AI makes better hires, nine of 10 qualify the claim, pointing to speed, data quality, or human oversight as the real driver rather than AI acting alone. Only one provider gives an unqualified yes. In short, **AI recruiting software is already delivering measurable efficiency gains.** Whether it consistently produces better hires will depend on how well the industry can measure, prove, and improve the outcomes that matter after the hiring decision. ## Frequently asked questions (FAQs) What slows down AI adoption in hiring? People factors, not technology. Candidate distrust of AI evaluation, limited AI fluency in talent acquisition teams, and proving ROI beyond speed each rank as top barriers, cited by five of 10 providers \[Q4\]. Regulatory uncertainty follows close behind. How can AI be used in recruiting? AI is most established early in the funnel. Among 10 surveyed providers, resume screening is live at 8 and candidate matching at 7. Skills-assessment scoring and AI-assisted interviews are live at 5 each. Candidate chatbots are live at just 1 — Definitiv. How many companies use AI in hiring? Roughly three in four organizations already use AI recruiting software features, and recruiting leads all HR software categories at an 81% AI utilization rate. Among the 10 recruiting software providers surveyed, resume screening is live at 8. How much time does AI save in recruiting? Eight of 10 providers report faster time-to-hire, five of them by 25% or more. Eight report saving recruiter hours, seven by at least 25% per hire. Time is the most consistently reported AI outcome in the survey. Does AI make the final hiring decision? No. None of the 10 providers surveyed fully automate the final hire recommendation. Seven keep it entirely human; three use an "AI recommends, human decides" model. At screening, 8 of 10 let AI recommend rejections with a human deciding. Do vendors themselves say AI makes better hires? No — they qualify it. Asked directly, nine of 10 providers pointed to speed, data quality, or human oversight as the real driver rather than AI acting alone. Only one gave an unqualified yes. Is AI going to take over recruiting? Not on providers' own timelines. Six of 10 expect AI to fully handle resume screening and shortlisting by 2027, and five expect it to handle interview scheduling. But five say no consequential hiring step should happen without a human, and only one expects AI to automate rejections. What is agentic AI in recruiting? Agentic AI means autonomous recruiting agents working with customers in production, not AI assisting a single task. Six of 10 providers surveyed have agents live, one is in beta, and three are still evaluating. Homebase reports its assistant screens candidates 24/7 via conversational AI. Does AI introduce bias into hiring? The surveyed providers did not report bias measurements, and treat it as unresolved. Josh McNicholas of Evalu-8 HR Software said proof would require AI-assisted hires to "succeed across a range of candidate backgrounds, without introducing unfair bias." Regulatory uncertainty was cited by 3 of 10 providers. Does AI reduce cost-per-hire? Mostly unmeasured. Seven of 10 providers do not track cost-per-hire at all. Of the three that do, Homebase and Avanti Software report improvements of 25–50%, and the third reports no measurable change. Does AI reduce candidate drop-off? Results vary widely. Definitiv and ClayHR report improvements of more than 50%; Homebase and Cezanne HR report 10–25%; AssessTEAM reports under 10%. Three providers report no measurable change and two do not track it. ## Capterra's 2026 Software Buying Trends Report ### Download our 2026 Software Buying Trends Report to see how successful software adopters avoid disappointment and how your business can, too. * * * Looking for Recruiting software? Check out Capterra's list of the [best Recruiting software](https://www.capterra.com/recruiting-software/) solutions. ### Was this article helpful? * * * ## About the Authors [### Harsh Choubey](https://www.capterra.com/resources/author/harsh-choubey/) Harsh is a marketing specialist at Capterra. With a background in B2B marketing, partner enablement, and content promotion, he drives joint research programs and builds vendor-facing assets that empower software providers to co-market their recognition and deliver actionable data across the B2B tech landscape. [### Emilie Audubert](https://www.capterra.com/resources/author/emilie-audubert/) Emilie is an expert in the human resources field, with a particular interest in digital tools to help human resources professionals streamline their day-to-day processes. Emilie’s research encompasses a wide array of topics, from the latest trends in talent management to innovative strategies for enhancing employee engagement. ### RELATED READING - [Best Employee Engagement Software in 2026: My Picks Based on 801 Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-employee-engagement-software-reviews-analysis/) - [Best Recruiting Software for Small Business in 2026: My Picks Based on 2,594 Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-recruiting-software-for-small-business-reviews-analysis/) - [Best Workforce Management Software for Retail in 2026: My Picks Based on 472 Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-workforce-management-software-for-retail-reviews-analysis/) - [Best Performance Management Software for Small Business in 2026: My Picks Based on 409 Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-performance-management-software-small-business-reviews-analysis/) - [Deputy vs. Homebase: Which Employee Scheduling Tool Fits Your Business?](https://www.capterra.com/resources/deputy-vs-homebase/) - [Best Employee Scheduling Software in 2026: My Picks Based on My Analysis of 2,678 Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-employee-scheduling-software-reviews-analysis/) - [Applicant Tracking System Pricing in 2026: What Businesses Actually Pay](https://www.capterra.com/resources/applicant-tracking-system-pricing-2026/) - [Human Services Case Management Software: My 5 Picks From 900+ Verified Capterra Reviews](https://www.capterra.com/resources/human-services-case-management-software-reviews/) - [9 Best Applicant Tracking Systems for Small Business (2026)](https://www.capterra.com/resources/best-applicant-tracking-system/) This report synthesizes data from two distinct research sources: \***Vendor Partner Research Survey:** Standardized on-the-record survey conducted with 10 recruiting software providers - Participants were asked to share the AI capabilities they offer today, the outcomes they measure, where human decision-making remains essential, and what they expect AI to handle next. - \[1\] Q: "Which quality-of-hire signals can your platform measure for customers today?" \*Select All That Apply. Note: Multiple selections are allowed.  - \[2\] Q: "Across your customer base over the past 12 months, what measurable change has your AI driven in each hiring outcome?” Note: Single choice per provider, per outcome. - \[3\] Q: "For each decision below, who makes the final call in your product's default configuration?" Note: Single choice per provider, per decision point. - \[4\] Q: “What most slows your customers’ adoption of AI-driven hiring today?” \*Select up to 2 options. Note: Multiple selections are allowed.  - \[5\] Q: "By the end of 2027, which hiring activities do you expect AI to handle fully autonomously at most organizations?" \*Select up to 3 options. Note: Multiple selections allowed. Two providers selected beyond the stated cap of 3; both are counted in full rather than trimmed to the cap. - This is a small provider sample. Findings reflect these providers' reported experience, not the entire recruiting or HR software category. \*\***2026 HR Software Trends survey**: Proprietary market research fielded in February 2026 among 1,000 U.S. HR leaders in management roles or above with responsibility for HR software purchase decisions. \*\*\*Market figures and vendor operational inputs are reported separately by design, and vendor operational figures are self-reported.