Headcount planning / US buying guide
7 headcount-planning tools for US employers
Compare seven headcount-planning options
| Order and product | Choose it for | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| 1TeamOhana Growth | Keep hiring approvals and Finance’s budget in the same planning process. | The Growth card offers annual or multi-year terms; its comparison table says two years minimum. Resolve this before signing. |
| 2ChartHop | Compare reorganisations, hiring dates and their budget effects. | Approval does not merge the scenario. HRIS-owned fields can overwrite changes after a merge. |
| 3headcount365 Core | Connect approved hiring requests to Greenhouse openings and offer updates. | At 750 employees, Core has an 18-month minimum. Confirm the included custom-field mappings. |
| 4Ashby Plus | Require an approved opening before making an offer in an existing Ashby account. | Openings need Plus or Enterprise. They do not replace Finance’s workforce forecast. |
| 5Pigment | Extend an existing Finance-owned Pigment model to hiring and workforce costs. | Agree who maintains position states and changes ATS records when the plan changes. |
| 6Workday Adaptive Planning | Connect headcount planning to an existing Workday HCM and Finance process. | Headcount Plan needs configured formulas, permissions and events. Confirm the exact Adaptive product. |
| 7Anaplan | Model workforce costs driven by pay, benefits, location and reporting structure. | Budget for building and maintaining the model, with a named Finance owner. |
This order reflects the needs of the employer described here. We have not tested the products in a live account.
Test a changed hiring plan · Compare the budget impact · Request a finalist demo
Do HR, recruiting and Finance need a shared hiring plan?
HR has 750 employees. Recruiting has open roles. Finance has approved positions and a salary forecast. Each team counts something different. Make the definitions clear before comparing the totals.
Consider a headcount platform if HR, recruiting and Finance cannot keep approved roles, open vacancies and the salary forecast aligned. If you only need to block offers for unapproved roles, check whether your ATS can do that first.
This shortlist assumes a US employer keeping its HRIS, ATS and finance system. The order reflects those needs, not hands-on product scores.
1. TeamOhana: approve hiring within the budget
TeamOhana is our first call when HR, Finance and Talent need to approve hiring against the same budget. Its Growth plan covers 501–1,500 employees.
Published starting prices are $45,000 a year plus $15,000 implementation.
Position management is a separate $3 per employee monthly add-on: another $27,000 a year at 750 employees. That brings the first-year starting sum to $87,000 if you buy both, before tax and other extras.
The page conflicts on term: the Growth card permits annual or multi-year plans; its table says two years minimum.
Base Growth over two years starts at $105,000 including setup, or $159,000 with that add-on throughout. Confirm currency, scope and term; these calculations are not a quote.
Our call: buy it for shared planning and approvals, not simply to block an unapproved offer. The latter may already be possible in your ATS.
2. ChartHop: compare reorganisations, hiring dates and costs
Choose ChartHop when leaders need to compare a reorganisation, hiring dates and budget together. Its Budget Scenario workflow separates who builds the proposal, who approves it and who merges it into the primary plan.
Approval does not update the primary plan. Someone must merge it, and HRIS-owned fields can overwrite changes on the next sync. Assign someone to merge approved scenarios and check for changes overwritten by the next HRIS sync.
Pricing is by proposal. Ask for the required modules and implementation for all 750 employees. Compare it when leaders need to model reorganisations and hiring dates together.
3. headcount365: connecting Greenhouse to the hiring plan
Compare headcount365 when recruiting uses Greenhouse and its live openings no longer match the approved hiring plan. The Greenhouse integration guide documents approved requisitions flowing in and candidate-stage and offer-status changes flowing back.
Core starts at $30,000 a year plus $5,000 setup for 501–2,000 employees, with an 18-month minimum. Assuming even proration, that is $50,000 over the minimum term, before tax and extras. The first-year sum is $35,000; the minimum commitment extends beyond it.
Check the included custom fields: its package descriptions are not fully consistent. Assign someone to review skipped records and default roles after the initial import.
4. Ashby: approval controls for existing customers
Already using Ashby Plus or Enterprise? Start there if the problem is offers against unapproved roles. Openings management distinguishes each position from the job advert, and strict mode can require an approved opening before an offer or hire.
It is unavailable on Foundations. Approval criteria also need attention: where none match, the documentation permits manually marking an opening approved. The label alone does not establish Finance sign-off.
Our view: test Ashby’s opening approvals before buying another headcount system. Ashby controls approved openings and offers; Finance still needs a workforce forecast. Plus pricing is by quote.
5–7. Extend the planning tools Finance already uses
5 · Pigment.
Its headcount planning product page describes ATS, HRIS and ERP flows, approval workflows, forecasting and scenarios.
Compare Pigment if Finance already uses it for wider business planning. Ask who defines the approved position, how a withdrawn offer returns to a vacancy, and what triggers an ATS correction. Ask for these steps to be demonstrated with your proposed configuration.
6 · Workday Adaptive Planning.
Workday’s Headcount Plan instructions call for Headcount, FTE and Cost of Workforce formulas; aggregate views need additional accounts or show “No data available”. Plans without events do not send the planner tasks that invite action.
For an existing Workday HCM and Adaptive customer, prove that the configured event, roster and Finance plan match.
Ask for the exact Adaptive product and implementation scope. Workday describes Org Design and Scenario Modeling as a separate Workforce Planning SKU that does not connect to Adaptive Planning instances. Do not quote that product as if it were an Adaptive Headcount Plan feature.
7 · Anaplan.
Its current headcount expense page describes salary, benefits, location and reporting-structure drivers and linking the plan to financial models.
Choose it when Finance already uses Anaplan to forecast salary, benefit and other workforce costs. The price is quote-only from the inspected product material. Agree who maintains the model, which calculations it uses and how plan changes reach the ATS. Include that maintenance in the budget.
Optional: check how a late start changes the plan
Five useful cases for your final demo
Use invented records only. Begin with 750 actual employees in the HRIS and five approved, vacant position IDs in Finance. Three of those positions have open ATS openings; two are approved for a later launch.
Keep the three counts separate: 750 employees, five approved vacancies and three live recruiting openings.
| Record and event | Expected result | What to check |
|---|---|---|
| P01 · freeze a live role | The approved position is retained for audit, but recruiting stops under the buyer’s freeze rule; no new employee exists. | Show who authorised the freeze, its effective date and the ATS opening. The test fails if offers continue without an approved exception. |
| P02 · transfer one employee | The person moves into one approved destination position. Their former position becomes unoccupied; it becomes a recruitable backfill only if separately authorised. Company employee count stays 750. | Link the two position IDs and one employee ID. The test fails if it creates an extra position or opens recruitment for the old role without approval. |
| P03 · delay an accepted offer | The ATS can show accepted offer, while the HRIS still has no actual employee for this position. Finance forecast start shifts from April to July. | Show both dates and the revised cost, plus who owns the update. The test fails if the accepted offer is counted as an employee before the agreed start event. |
| P04 · withdraw before start | Recruiting returns the position to its approved vacancy state under the agreed policy; no HRIS hire appears. | Keep the offer history. The test fails if it creates a duplicate vacancy or an employee who never started. |
| P05 · import the same opening twice | One approved position remains one position despite two inbound records with the same stable ID. | Show how the duplicate is skipped, rejected or reconciled. The test fails if the import creates a second approved position. |
Run these cases with fictional records on the HRIS and ATS editions you use. Save before-and-after exports and record which system owns each field.
A documented manual correction can be acceptable. Check the resulting record in the receiving system before accepting a successful-sync message. We have not run these tests against any supplier.
A delayed hire changes this year’s budget—not the salary
Consider a fictional role paying $120,000, with an assumed 25% employer load. Its annual planned cost is $150,000.
| Start | Months in year | Planned cost |
|---|---|---|
| 1 April | 9 | $112,500 |
| 1 July | 6 | $75,000 |
The $37,500 difference is timing, not a software saving. A useful planning system helps HR and Finance see that change before they rely on the old forecast.
Compare subscription, implementation and minimum-term commitment separately. Include position management and other required modules. TeamOhana’s separate position-management fee is one example of a cost to include.
Make the decision with HR and Finance
Bring HR and Finance together around the next hiring decision: approve a role, delay it, or fill it through an internal move. Choose the product that makes the cost and responsibility clear to both teams.
Compare TeamOhana for hiring approvals within Finance’s budget, ChartHop for reorganisations and hiring dates, or headcount365 for linking the plan to Greenhouse. Test Ashby first if you only need to block unapproved offers and already use Plus or Enterprise.
Ready to narrow your shortlist?
People Ops Buyer handles your request and follows up about next steps. No meeting is booked until confirmed.
Questions buyers ask
Which headcount planning software is best for a 750-person company?
For this US employer, start with TeamOhana to keep approved hiring within Finance’s budget, ChartHop to compare reorganisations and hiring dates, or headcount365 to connect the plan to Greenhouse. If you only need to block unapproved offers and already use Ashby Plus or Enterprise, test its opening controls first.
Is an accepted offer actual headcount?
No, under the counting rule used in this example. Keep accepted-offer status in the ATS and forecast its expected start in Finance; count an actual employee only when the agreed HRIS employment event occurs. Set the event rule explicitly for your organisation.
Can a planning system replace the ATS?
The products do different work. A planning approval can authorise a position, while the ATS manages candidate activity and offers. Require a stable position ID and a visible correction route between them.
What does headcount planning software cost?
For 750 employees, TeamOhana Growth starts at $45,000 annually plus $15,000 implementation; position management adds $27,000 annually at the published rate. Headcount365 Core starts at $30,000 annually plus $5,000 setup with an 18-month minimum. Confirm currency, term and required scope.
Sources and research scope
Primary vendor/product/help and Greenhouse integration material inspected 2 October 2026. Published $ figures are treated as assumed USD for this US buying model; confirm currency and actual quote. The five positions, people, dates and employer costs are fictional examples, not observed supplier results. Two competitor comparisons were read; the ChartHop article’s TeamOhana packaging claim conflicts with the current TeamOhana price page. We have not used supplier accounts or obtained sales quotes.
- TeamOhana current pricingGrowth headcount band, starting subscription and setup; internal contradiction on minimum term.
- ChartHop Budget Scenario helpPermissions, approver edits, lack of edit notifications, merge and HRIS overwrite risk.
- ChartHop current pricingQuote flow for Core plus selected modules; no current numeric list rate.
- headcount365 current pricingCore 501–2,000 band, 18-month minimum and $30K annual plus $5K setup; conflicting plan statements.
- headcount365 approval workflowsNet-new, backfill, transfer and change approval scope.
- Greenhouse headcount365 integrationCurrent import options, skips, plan-year choice and documented bidirectional statuses.
- Ashby openings managementJob versus individual opening, strict mode, edition availability and no-matching-approval route.
- Ashby current pricingPlus for 101–1,000 is quote-only; Foundations headline does not apply.
- Pigment headcount planningDeclared integrations, approval workflows and forecasting scope; no observed performance claim.
- Workday Adaptive Headcount PlansSpecific formula/account/event setup and missing aggregate-data condition.
- Workday Org Design and Scenario ModelingSeparate Workforce Planning SKU; this org-design function does not connect to Adaptive instances.
- Anaplan headcount expense planningCurrent salary/benefit/location modelling and financial linkage scope.