Let's get real: nobody answers their phone anymore. Your candidates certainly don't. That carefully crafted voicemail you left? Deleted without listening. That follow-up email? Buried in an inbox with 2,000 unread messages.

But text them? They'll respond in minutes.

Candidate texting platforms promise to solve this communication gap. Most of them just turn you into a spammer with a text message interface. Here's what actually works and what's a waste of money.

The Platforms I Tested

I spent 6 weeks using 5 different candidate texting platforms across multiple job openings. Real candidates, real conversations, real hiring outcomes.

Grasp - The recruiting-first platform Canvas - AI-powered text recruiting TextUs - Enterprise text messaging Sense - ATS-integrated communication Your phone + Google Voice - The DIY option everyone pretends doesn't exist

The Core Problem With Candidate Texting

Before we dive into specific tools, let's address the elephant in the room: text messaging for recruiting walks a razor-thin line between helpful and invasive.

Candidates love texting when:

• They initiated contact (they applied to your job)
• Messages are concise and relevant
• You're responsive and conversational
• It feels like human communication

Candidates hate texting when:

• You got their number from somewhere sketchy
• Messages are obviously automated templates
• You spam them with irrelevant jobs
• It feels like telemarketing 2.0

The difference between good candidate texting and annoying spam often comes down to the tool you use and how you use it.

Grasp: The Recruiting-Specific Winner

Grasp is built specifically for recruiting teams, and it shows. The platform integrates with major ATS systems, tracks conversation history, and makes it easy for multiple recruiters to manage candidate communications without stepping on each other's toes.

What works:

• Template library with merge fields that don't sound robotic
• Conversation assignment so multiple recruiters can collaborate
• ATS integration that keeps everything in sync
• Compliance features for texting regulations (yes, this matters)
• Actual conversation threading (you can see the full context)

What doesn't:

• The AI features are mostly marketing hype—they don't meaningfully improve your texting
• Mobile app is clunky compared to just using native messaging
• At $100-150/recruiter/month, it's not cheap

Verdict: If you're a recruiting team of 3+ people handling serious volume, Grasp is worth the cost. For solo recruiters or small teams, it's probably overkill.

Canvas: AI Promises vs. Reality

Canvas markets itself as "AI-powered recruiting communication." The pitch is compelling: the AI handles initial candidate outreach, screening questions, and scheduling while you focus on actual conversations.

The reality: The AI sounds like an AI. Candidates can tell they're talking to a bot, and response rates reflect that. The "personalization" is just mail merge with extra steps.

What actually works in Canvas:

• Bulk messaging for interview reminders and updates (where automation makes sense)
• The scheduling integration is solid
• Analytics on message performance are useful

What doesn't work:

• AI-written messages feel generic despite the "personalization"
• The conversational AI tries to handle nuanced questions and fails
• Candidates get frustrated when they realize they're not talking to a human

Verdict: Use Canvas for transactional messages (interview confirmations, reminders, updates) but not for actual candidate conversations. At $200+/month, you're paying a premium for AI features that hurt more than they help.

TextUs: Enterprise Scale With Enterprise Problems

TextUs is the enterprise option. If you're hiring at massive scale and need to text thousands of candidates per month, TextUs can handle the volume.

The good:

• Robust compliance and permissions management
• Can handle huge message volumes without breaking
• Deep integration options with enterprise ATS
• Proper team collaboration features

The bad:

• User interface feels like enterprise software (i.e., not enjoyable to use)
• Setup and implementation requires IT involvement
• Pricing is enterprise-tier: $20,000-$100,000+/year depending on scale
• The learning curve is steep

Verdict: Only buy TextUs if you're an enterprise recruiting team (500+ hires/year) and need industrial-strength text messaging. Everyone else is overpaying for capabilities they don't need.

Sense: The ATS-Native Option

Sense is interesting because it's designed to live inside your ATS rather than being a standalone tool. If you're on Greenhouse, Lever, or similar platforms, Sense plugs in as a communication layer.

What works:

• Feels native to your ATS workflow (no context switching)
• Conversation history lives where it should—in candidate profiles
• Multi-channel: text, email, and chat in one interface
• Reasonable pricing: $3,000-$10,000/year depending on size

What doesn't:

• Text messaging features are basic compared to dedicated platforms
• Limited customization options
• Depends heavily on how well it integrates with your specific ATS

Verdict: If your ATS integrates well with Sense and you want all candidate communication in one place, it's a solid choice. But the text messaging features alone don't justify it—buy it for the unified communication experience.

The DIY Option: Your Phone + Google Voice

Here's what nobody wants to admit: for small recruiting teams, you might not need a dedicated texting platform at all.

Get a Google Voice number ($0), use it for candidate communications, and just... text people from your phone like a normal human. No integration, no automation, no analytics. Just conversations.

When this works:

• Solo recruiters or teams of 2-3 people
• Lower hiring volume (under 50 hires/year)
• Roles where personalization matters more than scale

When it doesn't work:

• Multiple recruiters need to share conversations
• You need to track metrics and optimize performance
• Compliance and record-keeping are critical
• You're hiring at serious scale

The Compliance Issues Nobody Talks About

Before you start mass-texting candidates, understand this: text messaging has legal requirements that most platforms barely mention.

TCPA compliance requires written consent before you can text someone. "They applied to my job" is not automatically consent to text them. Some states have additional requirements.

Opt-out requirements: Every text needs a clear way to opt out. "Reply STOP to unsubscribe" is the standard.

Record-keeping: You need to maintain records of consent and conversation history for compliance audits.

The good platforms (Grasp, TextUs, Sense) handle this automatically. The cheaper platforms and DIY approaches? You're on your own.

What Actually Drives Response Rates

After texting hundreds of candidates across these platforms, here's what actually matters:

Timing: Text during business hours, not at 8 PM. Yes, candidates have their phones all the time. No, they don't want recruiting texts at night.

Brevity: Keep messages under 2-3 sentences. Anything longer should be an email.

Personalization: Use their name, reference their specific background. Generic templates get ignored.

Purpose: Every text should have a clear ask or provide clear value. "Just checking in" texts are annoying.

Responsiveness: If you're going to text candidates, actually respond when they text back. Slow responses kill the benefit of texting.

My Recommendations

For solo recruiters or teams under 5 people: Start with Google Voice or your phone. Don't overcomplicate it.

For growing recruiting teams (5-15 people): Grasp or Sense, depending on whether you want standalone texting or ATS-integrated communication.

For enterprise teams (15+ recruiters): TextUs if you need serious scale and compliance features. Expect to pay for it.

For everyone: Skip the AI-powered texting tools until the technology actually works. Right now, it's mostly hype.

The Bottom Line

Candidate texting platforms solve a real problem: candidates prefer texting over email and phone calls. But most platforms over-complicate simple communication with unnecessary automation and "AI" features that make conversations feel less human, not more.

The best candidate texting tool is one that gets out of your way and lets you have actual conversations. If your platform requires you to think about workflows, templates, and automation rules before you can send a simple message, it's too complicated.

Start simple. Text candidates like a human. Scale up to dedicated platforms only when volume demands it. And for the love of everything holy, don't use AI to write your messages. Candidates can tell, and they hate it.