Do the database work before the demo. Ask whether the system stores applicants, prospects, referrals, imported resumes and repeat applications as searchable candidate records. A basic ATS may track open roles well, but that is not enough if recruiters need to reuse people months later.
Check how talent pools are built. Tags, projects, lists, saved searches and custom fields matter more than a tidy careers page for this use case. The catch is governance: without clear ownership, old pools become stale lists that nobody trusts.
Separate search from rediscovery. Boolean filters and resume search help recruiters find known candidates, while AI rediscovery should resurface silver medallists, warm leads and overlooked applicants against a new role. Ashby is strongest here, but its AI Talent Rediscovery sits on Plus and Enterprise, not the $400 Foundations plan.
Price the follow-up channels. Email sequences, SMS, sourcing email lookups and AI credits can change the real cost of a candidate database. Ashby lists additional SMS at $90 per 1,000 messages, and its rediscovery uses AI credits, so ask for usage assumptions in writing.
Match CRM depth to hiring model. If the team only manages applicants for live jobs, a standard ATS may be enough. If recruiters build relationships before roles open, compare ATS and CRM trade-offs using /guides/ats-vs-crm-vs-hris/ before buying.
Test migration with messy records. Candidate notes, resumes, emails, scorecards and past applications need to move cleanly from the old ATS. A polished demo database proves little if duplicate candidates, missing consent status or stale profiles break the real archive.