Reverse recruiting marketplaces—where candidates apply to you instead of you hunting them down—sound like recruiter heaven. Vettery and Hired are the two biggest players in this space, both claiming to make hiring easier, faster, and more efficient.

The reality is more nuanced. Both platforms work well for specific use cases and fall flat for others. Let's figure out which (if either) is right for you.

How These Platforms Actually Work

The model is the same for both: candidates create profiles, pass screening, and get access to companies looking to hire. Companies review candidate profiles, request interviews, and candidates choose which opportunities to pursue.

It flips traditional recruiting—instead of you sourcing passive candidates, you're evaluating people actively looking. The trade-off is you get fewer candidates overall but they're pre-qualified and actively interested.

Vettery (owned by The Adecco Group): Vettery focuses on tech, sales, and finance roles. Candidates are screened by Vettery's team before accessing the marketplace. Companies pay success fees (typically 15% of first-year salary) when they hire.

Hired (owned by The Adecco Group, same parent company): Hired targets software engineers, product managers, designers, and data roles. Also screens candidates before marketplace access. Similar success fee model.

Yes, they're both owned by the same company now, which makes competing directly a bit awkward. They maintain separate brands and positioning, but there's obviously some overlap.

Candidate Quality: The Make-or-Break Factor

The entire value proposition relies on candidate quality. If the marketplace is full of unqualified people, you're wasting time. If it's full of strong candidates, you're golden.

Vettery's candidate quality is... inconsistent. Some hiring managers report excellent candidates, others report tons of filtering required. The screening process exists but doesn't seem consistently rigorous. You'll see everything from senior engineers at top companies to bootcamp grads padding their experience.

Vettery claims candidates are vetted, but "vetted" apparently means "has a complete profile and some relevant experience" rather than "meets high quality bars." Expect to spend time filtering.

Hired's candidate quality trends slightly higher. User feedback suggests Hired's screening is more selective, particularly for engineering roles. You still need to screen, but the baseline is generally better than Vettery.

Hired explicitly targets mid-to-senior level tech professionals, which filters out some of the junior bootcamp grads. Not foolproof, but the average quality is higher.

Neither platform is giving you only exceptional candidates, but Hired's floor is higher.

Volume: How Many Candidates Can You Actually See?

Reverse recruiting means smaller candidate pools than active sourcing. You're limited to people actively using these platforms and interested in new opportunities right now.

Vettery has more volume. The platform is broader in scope (tech, sales, finance) and less selective in screening. More candidates get through, which means more profiles to review. Whether this is good or bad depends on whether you value volume or quality.

For companies willing to do screening, Vettery's higher volume can work. For companies wanting only pre-qualified candidates, it's frustrating.

Hired has lower volume but better fit. Because Hired is more selective and narrowly focused on tech roles, you'll see fewer candidates overall. But the candidates you do see are more likely to be relevant.

For hard-to-fill specialized roles, Hired's focus is an advantage. For high-volume hiring, the smaller pool is a limitation.

Candidate Engagement: Do They Actually Respond?

One problem with reverse recruiting: candidates are being courted by multiple companies simultaneously. Just because someone's profile looks great doesn't mean they'll engage with you.

Both platforms struggle with engagement. Reports indicate that 40-60% of candidates don't respond to interview requests. Candidates are evaluating multiple opportunities and ghost companies that aren't their top choice.

This is frustrating but predictable. Candidates on these platforms have options and are often fielding 10+ interview requests. You're competing for attention.

Companies that see better response rates report personalizing their outreach, highlighting compelling aspects of the role/company, and moving quickly. Generic "we'd love to talk" messages get ignored.

Neither Vettery nor Hired has solved this problem. It's inherent to the marketplace model.

Pricing: Success Fees vs Subscriptions

Both platforms use success fee models (you pay when you hire), but structures differ.

Vettery charges 15% of first-year salary. Standard across most roles and seniority levels. For a $150K hire, that's $22.5K. No upfront costs, but the fee adds up for multiple hires.

Hired charges 15% for most roles, with some flexibility. Pricing can be negotiated for high-volume hiring or exclusive partnerships. Similar to Vettery overall.

Some companies negotiate annual subscriptions with unlimited hires, which makes sense if you're hiring 10+ people through the platform. Standard pricing is competitive with agency recruiting but more expensive than internal sourcing.

The value proposition: if these platforms save you sourcing time and recruiter effort, the fee justifies itself. If you're still spending significant time screening and candidates aren't responding, the ROI gets questionable.

Where Each Platform Wins

Use Vettery if you:

• Need higher volume of candidates and are willing to screen
• Hire across multiple functions (tech, sales, finance, not just engineering)
• Want exposure to a broader range of seniority levels
• Have recruiting bandwidth to filter through more profiles
• Aren't finding enough candidates on other platforms

Use Hired if you:

• Prioritize quality over quantity for tech roles
• Hire software engineers, product managers, designers, data professionals
• Want more selective pre-screening to reduce your filtering time
• Focus on mid-to-senior level technical hiring
• Value a more curated candidate experience

Where Both Platforms Fall Short

Let's be honest about what these platforms can't do:

Limited for non-tech roles. Both platforms are heavily tech-focused. If you're hiring operations, marketing, HR, or other non-technical roles, you'll find very few candidates. These platforms are not generalist marketplaces.

Geography matters a lot. Candidate pools are concentrated in major tech hubs (SF, NYC, Seattle, Austin, etc.). If you're hiring for secondary markets or remote roles outside these areas, the pools get very thin.

Senior/executive roles are rare. Most candidates are mid-level looking for their next opportunity. True senior ICs (staff+ level) and executives don't really use these platforms. They get recruited directly or use executive search firms.

Passive candidates aren't here. Everyone on these platforms is actively looking. If you need to recruit someone who's happy in their current role, you're sourcing directly on LinkedIn, not using Vettery or Hired.

No employer brand building. These platforms are transactional—candidates evaluate roles based on comp, title, and company reputation. You're not building relationships or nurturing talent pipelines. It's immediate hiring or nothing.

Success fees add up. Hiring 10 people at 15% fees means paying $150K-300K depending on salary levels. At that volume, building internal sourcing capacity might be cheaper long-term.

What Users Actually Say

Reviews are mixed for both platforms:

Vettery positive feedback:

• "Good source for junior-to-mid level tech and sales candidates"
• "Higher volume than Hired, useful for filling multiple roles"
• "Success fee model means no risk if we don't hire anyone"

Vettery complaints:

• "Lots of unqualified candidates, screening is time-consuming"
• "Candidate response rates are frustratingly low"
• "Quality varies significantly—not consistently vetted"

Hired positive feedback:

• "Better quality candidates than Vettery on average"
• "Good for software engineering and product roles specifically"
• "Pre-screening saves time compared to sourcing from scratch"

Hired complaints:

• "Smaller candidate pool makes it harder for niche roles"
• "Many candidates are simultaneously interviewing—lots of competition"
• "Success fees are expensive for multiple hires"

The Honest Comparison

vs. Traditional Recruiting: These platforms are faster than building pipelines from scratch but slower than having pre-existing talent pools. They're more expensive than internal sourcing but cheaper than agencies. They're a middle option—good for immediate needs, less good for strategic hiring.

vs. LinkedIn Recruiter: LinkedIn gives you access to passive candidates; these platforms give you active candidates. LinkedIn requires more sourcing effort; these platforms require more screening effort. Many companies use both for different roles.

vs. Job Boards (Indeed, ZipRecruiter): Job boards have massive volume but zero pre-screening. Vettery and Hired have smaller pools but better baseline quality. Job boards for high-volume junior roles; marketplaces for quality-focused mid-level roles.

vs. Agency Recruiting: Agencies do the sourcing and screening for you; marketplaces give you access to candidates. Agencies are more expensive (20-30% fees) but more hands-off. Marketplaces are cheaper but require more internal effort.

Which One Should You Actually Use?

For most tech companies hiring mid-level engineers, product managers, or designers: Try Hired first. The quality floor is higher, which saves screening time. If you're not finding enough candidates, add Vettery for volume.

For companies hiring across multiple functions (tech, sales, finance): Vettery's breadth is more useful. But allocate time for screening—you're trading volume for quality.

For companies hiring senior/executive roles: Neither platform is ideal. Use executive search firms or direct sourcing.

For high-volume technical hiring (10+ engineers per quarter): Negotiate annual subscriptions with both platforms to get unlimited hires at fixed costs rather than paying 15% fees per hire.

For companies with strong internal recruiting: These platforms are supplemental sources, not primary strategies. Use them opportunistically when you need extra candidates for hard-to-fill roles.

The Bottom Line

Reverse recruiting marketplaces are useful tools but not magic solutions. They work well for specific use cases (mid-level tech roles, immediate hiring needs, companies without strong sourcing capacity) and work poorly for others (senior roles, passive candidates, employer brand building).

Hired has better quality and focus for technical roles. Vettery has more volume and breadth across functions. Neither is dramatically better—choose based on your specific needs.

The success fee model means there's no downside to trying both. Create accounts, review candidates for a month, see which platform yields better results. The platform that consistently surfaces candidates you want to interview is the one you should use.

Just don't expect either platform to replace proactive sourcing entirely. They're one channel in a multi-channel recruiting strategy, not a complete solution.

And if candidates aren't responding to your interview requests? That's not the platform's fault—it's your employer brand, compensation, or outreach messaging. Fix those first before blaming the marketplace.