9 minute read

HCM vendors make a compelling pitch: why keep paying for a standalone ATS like iCIMS when you could consolidate everything into your HCM suite?

It sounds logical—until you look under the hood. The truth is, most companies haven’t come close to using what they already have.

If a best-in-class ATS once made sense for your team, the problem probably isn’t the platform. It’s how you’re using it.

The Real Problem: Underutilization Masquerading as Platform Failure

Before assuming iCIMS isn’t delivering value, it’s worth pausing to ask a few questions:

• Do you know your cost per hire?
• Can your system admin explain how your configuration impacts business outcomes?
• Have you benchmarked your setup against industry best practices?

If the honest answer to any of these is “no,” you’re not alone. It’s incredibly common for applicant tracking systems to be treated as line items rather than strategic assets—especially when the day-to-day work of managing them falls to someone without the time or support to optimize them fully.

This tends to happen for two key reasons:

1. Companies don’t effectivley measure what matters, either because it’s prohibitively complicated to gather the inormation, it gets deprioritized in the crush of other things that need attention, or some combination of both.

But without knowing your true cost per hire at a minimum, it’s impossible to calculate what a 10% reduction in time-to-fill is actually worth. You’re flying blind on ROI. (Here’s why cost per hire is so elusive—and how to finally measure it.)

2. System administrators aren’t positioned strategically. In too many organizations, the ATS system admin resets passwords and updates fields—they’re not identifying where you’re overspending on agency fees, where process gaps create time sinks, or how to configure the system to solve real business problems. This may happen because admin responsibilities are squeezed into someone else’s job. (You may have already outgrown the part-time admin model, but haven’t yet recognized the tipping point.)

When your system admin partners with TA leadership on strategy, measurable wins follow. Larger organizations get this. They invest in admin professional development, optimize configurations, and benchmark against peers. But for many others, underutilization becomes a justification for replacing the system entirely, not a wake-up call to dig deeper.

Don’t Throw Out the Solution—Make It Work Harder

iCIMS isn’t perfect. No system is. But if, at one point in time, someone at your company decided it was worth the investment, the answer probably isn’t to replace it—it’s to fully unlock its value.

That means:

• Investing in your system administrator’s strategic development
• Connecting your configuration to real business outcomes
• Measuring what actually matters to your organization
• Learning from other practitioners who’ve solved similar challenges—especially how great system administrators drive recruiting success

💡 Measure what matters, empower your admins, and make decisions rooted in ROI—not marketing.

But if You’re Still Set on Switching: The RFP Trap

When companies start exploring a switch from iCIMS, the process usually begins with a traditional RFP. That makes sense on the surface—but here’s the issue: most RFPs don’t actually capture what’s at stake.

They struggle to account for the nuanced functionality you’ll lose by moving to a bundled solution—and they rarely quantify the long-term business costs of those trade-offs in a meaningful way.

This isn’t a knock on procurement or IT. It’s a reflection of how incredibly hard it is to see what’s missing until it’s gone.

The truth is, you can’t demo your way into understanding the real differences between platforms. Accurate and thorough evaluation requires more than feature checklists. It involves:

• Synthesizing massive amounts of fragmented product data

• Prioritizing capabilities based on your specific workflows

• Quantifying the ROI impact of each gap or gain

• And—critically—getting input from people who’ve actually used these systems in real enterprise contexts

What We Hear from Practitioners Who Made the Switch

After working with hundreds of organizations, I’ve yet to meet one that was satisfied with the HCM bundled solution in comparison to iCIMS. The feedback is always the same: we underestimated what we would be losing. They say things like:

 

“In Dayforce, I had someone full-time fielding calls from applicants because they had issues logging in or completing an application.”

 

“Support is a struggle, everything you do costs extra and the system is not a robust ATS.”

 

“It felt like we were renting functionality rather than building something sustainable. I don’t think anyone really thought through how painful the trade-offs would be.”

These aren’t one-off stories—they reflect the kinds of operational challenges that rarely surface in RFPs or demos. When applicants struggle just to log in, and internal teams are fielding support calls instead of focusing on strategic work, the impact on productivity can add up quickly.

The hard part is getting access to this kind of insight during a platform evaluation. No consultant can personally experience every system in depth. And many industry voices—whether consultants, analysts, or influencers—have financial relationships with vendors that can influence their recommendations, often without full transparency.

To get a more complete picture, we’ve tried a different approach—combining three sources of perspective:

• AI-powered research that synthesizes documentation, product reviews, analyst content, and public feedback

• Community insight from hands-on system administrators in our System Admin Insights network

• Practical consulting experience grounded in implementation strategy, configuration, and talent operations

This triangulation helps fill in the gaps that any single viewpoint would miss. The result is a more realistic, well-rounded understanding of how platforms perform in real-world contexts—not just in sales conversations.

But before diving into that analysis, let’s zoom out for a moment.

Not every organization needs to go to RFP. Here’s how to tell whether switching platforms makes sense—or whether you’re better off optimizing what you’ve already got.

Who Actually Needs to Switch (And Who Doesn’t)

You probably don’t need a point solution if:

• You’re under 1,000 employees with no growth plans
• You don’t have bandwidth to manage a powerful tool like iCIMS
• You’re willing to accept reduced functionality for operational simplicity

In these cases, a bundled HCM solution could be the right move. Just be honest about the trade-offs—you will lose significant functionality.

You should think twice about switching if:

• You’re under 1,000 employees but anticipating growth into the 1,000-3,000 range
• You have complex workflows, compliance needs, or integration requirements
• The reasons you originally chose iCIMS still apply to your business

Even a part-time system administrator—perhaps a tech-savvy recruiter—can maintain real momentum with the right support. But when leadership is leaning toward a platform change, the conversation usually moves from optimization to replacement.

That’s when the formal RFP process kicks in.

A Unique Approach to the RFP Problem

If you’ve decided to go to RFP, vendor demos and feature checklists will only get you so far. What organizations really need is a clear understanding of what they’re gaining—and what they might be giving up.

To support that kind of evaluation, we’ve taken a different approach: combining AI-aggregated research, practitioner insight, and consulting perspective to provide a fuller, more grounded view of each platform.

First, the research.

Using ChatGPT’s Deep Research capabilities, we developed a tool that pulls together publicly available information from across the web—product documentation, analyst commentary, user reviews, and social content. This allows us to identify patterns and surface functionality details that may not be obvious in marketing materials or demo environments.

Below, you’ll find our comparative research on iCIMS versus the top six HCM platforms that bundle applicant tracking: ADP, Dayforce, Oracle, SAP, UKG, and Workday.

Each analysis includes:

• Targeted questions to ask each vendor

• Deep-dive feature comparisons

• AI-synthesized summaries of publicly available data from documentation, social media, and review sites

You can also explore the GPT tool we used to compile this research (a ChatGPT account is required). It’s available for independent use—tailor your questions by industry, company size, or recruiting model to get more relevant results. I also recommend paying for a ChatGPT subscription (you can now get DeepResearch on the $20/month plan) to use it as your own analyst. It’s a powerful way to dig deeper into vendor capabilities and generate targeted insights on demand.

Comparisons available:

• iCIMS vs. ADP Recruiting
• iCIMS vs. Ceridian Dayforce Recruiting
• iCIMS vs. Oracle Recruiting
• iCIMS vs. SAP SuccessFactors Recruiting
• iCIMS vs. UKG Recruiting (formerly UltiPro)
• iCIMS vs. Workday Recruiting

Second, the human element.

This is where System Admin Insights (SAI) comes in—a community of hands-on-keyboard professionals who make HR technology actually work. These aren’t consultants or analysts writing reports from the outside. These are the people who live inside these systems daily, who know which features work as advertised and which ones fall short when you need them most.

When you’re evaluating platforms, you need insights from system administrators who’ve configured workflows in Workday, troubleshot integrations in UKG, or wrestled with reporting limitations in Dayforce. You need to hear from the iCIMS admin who moved to Oracle and regretted it, or the one who switched from ADP to iCIMS and never looked back.

Our SAI community gives you access to these real-world perspectives. These are the professionals who can tell you what the demos won’t show, what the RFPs can’t capture, and what the real costs look like six months after implementation.

Third, the consultative perspective.

While AI can surface insights and peer communities can share valuable lived experience, sometimes it takes a broader vantage point to fully assess your options. That’s where a consultative perspective becomes essential—especially from someone who’s implemented these platforms across multiple organizations, seen what works (and what doesn’t), and understands the strategic trade-offs companies face when evaluating a switch.

The most helpful consultants in this space aren’t just technical experts. They’ve supported enterprise rollouts, navigated internal politics, and translated HR priorities into platform decisions that stand the test of time. Ideally, they’ve sat on both sides of the table—working with vendors and inside complex organizations—and bring that dual perspective to your decision-making process.

But just as important is who they don’t work for. Make sure the person advising you doesn’t have a horse in the race. Many consultants, analysts, and influencers receive referral fees, commissions, or sponsorships from the platforms they recommend—sometimes without disclosing it. That can shape what you hear, even when it’s unintentional. At IRD, we don’t take kickbacks. While we specialize in supporting iCIMS customers, our only incentive is helping you make the right call for your organization.

When paired with AI-driven research and practitioner insight, an independent, well-informed perspective can help cut through noise, surface blind spots, and align your technology decisions with your broader talent goals—whether that means optimizing your current system or exploring something new.

The Bottom Line: Make Decisions Rooted in Reality

Platform decisions are often shaped by marketing narratives, internal pressure, or the promise of simplicity. But switching your ATS isn’t just a technical change—it reshapes how your organization hires, collaborates, and delivers on talent strategy.

Before making that leap, it’s worth asking:

• Are we getting the most out of what we already have?

• Have we set our system administrators up for success?

• Do we fully understand the operational and strategic trade-offs involved in switching?

If the answer to any of these is uncertain, it’s okay to pause. This isn’t a decision to rush.

Instead of more demos, what most teams need is a clearer picture—grounded in data, informed by real-world experience, and aligned with business goals.

That’s why we’ve combined AI-based research, insight from experienced system administrators, and lessons learned across dozens of implementations—to help companies navigate this decision with a fuller understanding of what’s at stake.

Whether you stick with your current system or explore something new, the best next step is making sure you’re solving the right problem—and moving forward with intention.

If you’re looking for input from peers or want to compare notes with others in similar roles, consider joining our practitioner community. Sometimes just talking it through with someone who’s been there can make all the difference.

👉 Want to dig deeper? Learn how a skilled admin can transform iCIMS from a cost center into a strategic asset.

👉 Not sure if your current setup is sustainable? Learn how to know when it’s time to bring in dedicated support.

👉 Want to understand the full strategic impact of expert system administration? Read why iCIMS System Administrators are the unsung heroes of talent acquisition. You’ll see how a well-supported admin can turn your ATS from an underused tool into a true competitive advantage.

👉 Curious why most teams can’t track cost per hire—and what to do about it? Read our deep dive on cost per hire confusion and how to fix it. You’ll learn how to make TA metrics work for your business, even if your data isn’t perfect yet.