Pin

What it is

Pin is an AI recruiting agent that runs the entire outbound loop from one job description — source across a claimed 850 million profiles, rank by fit, message across email, LinkedIn and SMS, then book the interview. It is built by Love Thy Recruiting, Inc., founded in 2024 in West Hollywood by CEO Steven Lu, out of stealth in December 2024 on a $3M seed from Expa, at roughly 25 staff and a claimed 10,000+ users. Two decisions separate it from the rest of the category. The first is scope: most vendors here sell one stage of the funnel and hand you back to a spreadsheet, while Pin sells the sequence end to end. The second is that it publishes per-seat prices for that sequence instead of routing every buyer to a demo — which in a segment where SeekOut and Gem are both quote-only is the more consequential of the two.

Why it shows up in Recruiting stacks

• The MCP server is generally available, first-party, and not upsold. It exposes 10 tools across four phases: list_jobs, scrape_job_description and create_job for setup; get_candidates, accept_candidate and reject_candidate for review; modify_search and recalibrate_search for tuning; read_job_memory and update_job_memory for persistence. Auth is OAuth 2.1 via WorkOS against a single mcp scope, and the vendor states it ships on every paid plan with no metered call limit and no per-seat MCP fee. Job memory that survives between sessions plus accept/reject as callable tools is what lets a recruiter run the shortlist from Claude Code or Cursor rather than clicking through a web UI — and it is the reason this entry exists at all.
• Rank-by-fit is the product; the search box is the wrapper. The agent reads the req and scores candidates against it, then takes your accept and reject decisions as calibration signal via recalibrate_search. That feedback loop is what a keyword sourcing tool structurally cannot do, and it is where the 12 hours a week the vendor claims recruiters reclaim would have to come from.
• The ATS is treated as the system of record, not the competitor. Pin claims 120+ ATS integrations and names Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, Bullhorn, iCIMS and Jobvite. Buying Pin does not mean migrating your req and offer history.
• SOC 2 Type 2 is done. At 25 staff that is not a given, and it is what makes the tool survivable in a security review at a Series B and up.

Pricing reality

Four published tiers, all paid ones billed annually. Free is one seat, one job, one agent, email-only sequences and 5 contact lookup credits per week. Solo is $99 per user per month with 500 credits. Professional is $135 per user per month with 1,000 credits per seat, shared inbox and the email-plus-LinkedIn-plus-SMS sequences. Business is $225 per user per month with 2,000 credits per seat, premium ATS connectors and SOC 2 documentation. The crossed-out $179 and $299 on the pricing page are the monthly rates; the annual toggle is a 25% discount, so the published figures are the discounted ones.

The real band for an in-house team of three is $4,860 a year on Professional and $8,100 on Business. Two line items sit outside that. Contact lookups run out and are sold as add-on packs at about $50 per 500 credits, so the true cost scales with how many profiles you actually reveal rather than with seats. And SSO/SAML and SCIM are $150 per month each, on Professional and Business only — $3,600 a year if your security review requires both, which is 44% on top of three Business seats. Model that before you set the number against a Gem or SeekOut quote.

Best for

In-house TA leads and founder-recruiters at 10-200 person companies running 1-10 concurrent reqs who want sourcing, outreach and scheduling on a seat license they can read off a public page — and specifically for teams that intend to drive the loop from an MCP client rather than a browser tab. That last clause is the sharpest reason to pick Pin over anything else in the segment today.

Don’t buy it for high-volume hourly or frontline hiring, where conversational screening and shift scheduling are the actual bottleneck — that is Paradox territory. Don’t buy it as an ATS; it integrates into yours and does not replace it. And don’t buy it for enterprise TA that needs workforce-scale internal-talent analytics.

Versus the alternatives

SeekOut is the enterprise pole and also ships MCP. Pick SeekOut when you need internal-talent and diversity analytics across a workforce of thousands, and you have procurement capacity to run a quote-only cycle. Pick Pin when you want the price before the sales call and your problem is filling reqs rather than mapping talent.

Gem is the other scaled incumbent and the deeper recruiting CRM — sourcing, nurture, pipeline analytics and ATS reporting across a 20-plus recruiter org. Pick Gem when the thing that hurts is recruiter workflow and pipeline reporting at team scale. Pick Pin when the team is small enough that the reporting layer is overhead and what you want is the agent doing the work.

Juicebox is the fastest-growing entrant and the closest fight on price at $99. It solves the narrower problem — natural-language search over external profiles — and stops there. Pick Juicebox when sourcing is the only broken step and you already have outreach and scheduling handled. Pick Pin when the handoffs between those steps are what leak.

If none of these fit — because your constraint is screening throughput on hundreds of applicants rather than finding candidates at all — this is an inbound triage problem, not a sourcing one, and you should scope the conversational layer first and let it pick the sourcing tool.

Watch-outs

• Every headline metric traces to Pin’s own user survey with no published sample size. The April 21, 2026 release quotes an 83% candidate acceptance rate, a 14-day average fill, 5x outreach response rates, 95% of recruiters reporting better candidate quality and a 90% cut in recruiting spend — all attributed to “Pin’s 2026 user survey,” which discloses no n, no survey window and no selection criteria. Guard: treat the whole set as directional. Run a 30-day paid pilot on two live reqs and measure your own reply rate and days-to-first-interview against your current baseline before any of those numbers enter a business case.
• The review base is thin. The 4.8/5 rating rests on 27 verified reviews. A 4.8 across 27 is not the same evidence as a 4.4 across 900. Guard: ask for three references hiring the same role family and geography you are, and ask each what Pin got wrong.
• The vendor’s own pages disagree on the price floor. Marketing pages quote $49/mo and $100/mo starting points that do not match the $99 annual Solo tier on the pricing page. Guard: quote the pricing page in the order form and get the credit allocation written into it.
• Paid tiers are annual-only. There is no monthly escape hatch on Solo, and the free tier’s 5 credits a week is enough to test match quality on one req but not enough to test outreach at volume. Guard: negotiate a paid 30-day pilot with an exit rather than testing on free, and put the exit date in writing.
• Credits meter contact data, not sourcing. Running out mid-req means paying $50 per 500 to keep going, and reveal volume per hire varies with how tight the fit ranking is. Guard: count reveals per hire during the pilot and multiply by your annual req count; if that number exceeds the bundled allocation, price the packs into year one instead of discovering them in month three.
• 25 people and $3M raised into a consolidating market. Workday bought Paradox, SAP bought SmartRecruiters, and single-stage vendors are the ones being absorbed. Pin is deliberately multi-stage, which helps, but it is small. Guard: confirm ATS write-back is live before you commit, so candidate and outreach history lands in your ATS. If Pin is acquired or repriced, your records should already be somewhere you own.