All-in-one or best-of-breed? How to choose the right ATS setup for your recruitment agency

There is a question that tends to come up in most conversations with recruitment agency owners at some point: whether it makes more sense to move towards an all-in-one platform, or to keep an existing setup and build around it with additional tools.

At first glance, it appears to be a technical decision. In practice, it rarely is. It is more often a reflection of how an agency operates, and of the level of complexity it is willing — or able — to manage over time.

What sits behind the two approaches

An all-in-one ATS is designed to centralise most, if not all, core functions within a single platform. Candidate tracking, client management, job posting, reporting, and in some cases invoicing or payroll, are brought together in one environment. Platforms such as Bullhorn or Vincere are often positioned in this category.

The underlying promise is straightforward: a single source of truth, consistent data, and fewer dependencies between tools.

An integrated stack follows a different logic. It relies on a core ATS, complemented by a range of specialised tools connected through integrations. The ATS remains central, but functions such as outreach, reporting, or job distribution are handled externally. Systems like JobAdder are often built with this type of flexibility in mind.

Both approaches are widely used. Both can function effectively. And in both cases, the outcome depends less on the software itself than on how it is implemented and maintained.

Where an all-in-one approach tends to help

In environments where teams spend a significant amount of time moving between tools, duplicating information, or compensating for gaps between systems, consolidation can bring a form of stability.

Working within a single platform often leads to more consistent data and a clearer view of activity across the pipeline. For smaller teams in particular, the reduction in operational complexity can outweigh the limitations of the system itself.

At the same time, this model introduces its own constraints.Because all-in-one platforms are designed to cover a wide range of use cases, they do not always align perfectly with specific operational needs. Certain modules may feel limited, or less efficient than dedicated tools.

When those limitations appear, the ability to adapt is often restricted by the boundaries of the platform.

Where an integrated stack can be more appropriate to get the right ATS

For agencies that already have a system in place which is broadly understood and used by the team, replacing it entirely is not always the most effective response to frustration.

In many cases, the difficulties attributed to the ATS are linked to configuration, usage, or missing connections between tools, rather than to the system itself.

An integrated approach allows for more flexibility.Different tools can be selected based on specific needs and combined to support the overall workflow.

However, this flexibility comes with a different type of requirement.Integrations need to be implemented, monitored, and maintained. They introduce an additional layer of complexity, which relies on someone within the organisation taking ownership of the system as a whole.

Without that ownership, the stack can quickly become difficult to understand and manage, particularly over time.

The questions that tend to matter more than the tools

Before moving towards one approach or the other, it is often useful to step back and look at a few underlying aspects.

The first is how the current system is actually being used. When workarounds are common, data entry is inconsistent, or reporting is not trusted, these are usually indicators of behavioural or process-related issues. Changing platforms does not necessarily address them.

The second is the level of clarity around the problem itself. General statements such as “the ATS is not working” rarely lead to meaningful decisions. More specific observations — for example around reporting visibility or time spent on administrative tasks — tend to point more directly towards potential solutions.

There is also the question of ownership. Every system, whether centralised or integrated, requires ongoing management. In smaller organisations, this responsibility often sits alongside other roles, which can limit the ability to maintain the setup effectively over time.

Finally, the cost of change is not limited to licences. Migration, retraining, and the adjustment period for teams all have an impact, even if they are not always visible at the outset.

A more measured way to approach the decision

In practice, many agencies that consider changing their ATS are not necessarily facing a software issue. The underlying difficulties are often linked to how the system has been configured, how consistently it is used, or how well it fits within existing processes.

This does not mean that platform changes are never justified.There are situations where the limitations of a system are structural, or where the relationship with the provider no longer supports the organisation’s needs.

But in most cases, the decision benefits from starting with a clear understanding of what is not working in practice, rather than from a comparison of features.

Because the difference between two systems is often less significant than the difference between a system that is understood and one that is not.