For financial services employers, choosing an ATS is a compliance decision as much as an operational one, because the platform your firm relies on directly determines how much regulatory risk your HR team carries. We review 10 ATS platforms across the specific integration models, workflow capabilities, and audit trail features that FDIC, NCUA, FINRA, and FCRA rules demand from regulated hiring pipelines. The differences between platforms are significant, and understanding where those gaps fall is critical for any financial services HR or compliance team that cannot afford documentation failures in a supervisory review.
Key Takeaways:
- The ATS integration model your financial services firm uses is not just a technical choice; it is a compliance decision that shapes how much regulatory risk your HR team carries. Native marketplace integrations provide stronger, automated audit trails and reduce data handling errors compared to manual or loosely connected API setups.
- Background screening in financial services is a federal and state regulatory control embedded in rules including FDIC Section 19, NCUA Section 1785(d), and FCRA. The ATS managing your hiring pipeline must be capable of supporting these requirements, or your HR team absorbs the compliance gap manually.
- FCRA adverse action compliance is a documented multi-step process that your ATS pipeline must be able to support. Employers remain legally responsible for completing every required step, regardless of what the platform does or does not handle natively.
- Even the strongest ATS platform does not replace an employer's independent compliance duties. Financial services firms must verify platform features directly with their vendor and engage qualified legal counsel before relying on any ATS setup for regulated hiring.
- Not all ATS platforms are built with U.S. financial services compliance requirements in mind, and some widely used platforms carry significant gaps for regulated employers. When an ATS cannot natively support required screening steps, HR teams must fill those gaps manually, increasing both operational burden and audit exposure.
For financial services employers, the right applicant tracking system does more than organize candidates. It must support certified background screening, FCRA-compliant adverse action steps, and audit-ready records for FDIC, NCUA, and FINRA rules. Platforms with native screening partner networks give financial services HR and compliance teams a stronger technical foundation for defensible, efficient hiring. Selecting a capable ATS platform does not, however, replace employer compliance duties, which exist on their own and require qualified legal oversight.
What Should Financial Services Teams Look for in an ATS Background Screening Integration?
Three integration models define how background screening connects to an ATS. In particular, the model your platform uses determines how much compliance risk your HR team carries.
| Integration Type | Compliance Audit Trail | Technical Effort | FS Suitability |
| Native Marketplace/Partner | Strong, automated, in-platform | Low (pre-built) | Highest |
| API/Webhook Custom | Depends on build quality | High (IT required) | Moderate |
| Manual Export/Portal | Weak, error-prone | Ongoing manual labor | Low |
- Native marketplace integration means the ATS hosts a certified partner directory where screening is ordered, tracked, and received without leaving the platform or re-entering candidate data. In fact, this model provides the strongest foundation for regulated employers because it reduces data handling errors and supports documented audit trails.
- API/webhook integration exposes technical connection points for the screening provider to exchange data. However, audit trail quality depends entirely on how the setup is built and maintained.
- Manual export/portal processes require HR staff to export candidate data to a separate screening portal and manually import results back into the ATS. As a result, these processes generate data entry errors, timing delays, and unreliable records.
10 ATS Platforms Reviewed for Background Screening and Compliance Capability in Financial Services
1. Workday
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 5/5
Workday is a large-enterprise HCM and ATS platform with significant market share among banks, insurance carriers, and enterprise financial firms. Its certified native marketplace (Workday Marketplace) supports structured data exchange with verified screening partners without leaving the platform. In addition, FCRA adverse action steps, role-based screening setup by job profile, and specific review records are all supported through certified integrated partners. SOC 2 compliant setup provides a strong audit trail, and vendor oversight records are available for third-party risk reviews. Multi-jurisdiction compliance setup, including credit check limits and ban-the-box timing, should be verified with Workday and legal counsel.
Bottom Line: Workday's certified screening partner marketplace and audit-ready setup provide a strong technical foundation for enterprise financial services employers.
2. SAP SuccessFactors
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 5/5
SAP SuccessFactors is a large-enterprise HCM suite widely deployed at global banks, insurance carriers, and investment management firms. Its certified partner marketplace supports native integration with background screening providers, FCRA adverse action steps, role-based setup with multi-jurisdiction compliance capability relevant to credit check gating and ban-the-box timing, and strong audit trail records. Furthermore, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certifications support GLBA Safeguards and interagency third-party risk oversight. Jurisdiction-specific setups should be verified with SAP and legal counsel.
Bottom Line: SAP SuccessFactors delivers enterprise-grade background screening integration and multi-jurisdiction compliance setup well-suited to large, globally regulated financial firms.
3. UKG Pro
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 5/5
UKG Pro is a mid-to-large enterprise HCM platform with strong deployment across community banks, credit unions, and regional financial firms. The UKG Marketplace offers certified background screening partners with native integration, FCRA adverse action workflow support through certified partners, role-based setup with specific review records, and SOC 2 compliant audit trail features. Its compliance posture is particularly well-suited to FDIC Section 19 and NCUA §1785(d) review rules. Jurisdiction-specific rules should be verified with UKG and legal counsel.
Bottom Line: UKG Pro's certified screening marketplace and strong FS compliance posture make it a leading option for community banks, credit unions, and regional financial firms.
4. iCIMS
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 4/5
iCIMS is a mid-to-enterprise ATS with a significant financial services client base. Its established certified partner marketplace (iCIMS Marketplace) supports native integration with multiple screening providers, FCRA adverse action workflow support through certified partners, role-based screening setup by role type, and audit trail features suitable for FS third-party risk rules. Jurisdiction-specific rules, including ban-the-box timing and credit check gating, should be verified with iCIMS and legal counsel.
Bottom Line: iCIMS delivers strong native screening integration and FS compliance capability, making it a solid option for mid-to-large financial services employers.
5. Greenhouse
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 4/5
Greenhouse is a mid-to-enterprise ATS with growing adoption in financial services and fintech. Its partner marketplace includes certified background screening setups with native data flow, role-based setup, FCRA adverse action workflow support through certified partners, and a security posture that supports FS compliance standards. In addition, the marketplace includes certified providers with financial-services-aware screening packages. Jurisdiction-specific rules should be verified with Greenhouse and legal counsel.
Bottom Line: Greenhouse delivers native screening integration and a strong compliance posture, making it a competitive option for financial services and fintech employers.
6. Zoho Recruit
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 2/5
Zoho Recruit is a globally used ATS targeting SMB and mid-market employers. It relies primarily on third-party API connections or manual portal processes with no robust certified native screening marketplace. As a result, FCRA adverse action steps are not natively supported within the ATS, requiring employers to establish extra manual controls. Role-based setup requires custom work, and vendor oversight records should be reviewed on their own against bank-grade interagency third-party risk rules.
Bottom Line: Zoho Recruit requires significant extra manual controls for financial services employers to meet FCRA, FDIC, and related compliance duties. The compliance burden on HR operations is much higher.
7. Breezy HR
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 2/5
Breezy HR is an SMB-focused ATS designed for small and early-stage companies. Its limited partner list means screening steps are primarily managed outside the platform. In this case, FCRA adverse action steps are handled through the screening vendor's own tools, requiring extra manual controls to satisfy all procedural steps. There is no native FS role-risk tier setup, and the audit trail is not designed for regulated-industry review steps.
Bottom Line: Breezy HR's integration depth requires substantial extra manual compliance setup for FDIC-insured firms or FINRA-regulated broker-dealers.
8. Ashby
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 2/5
Ashby is an ATS built primarily for tech companies and high-growth startups. It relies on API connections with a limited certified native screening marketplace. FCRA adverse action steps are not natively embedded in the ATS pipeline and require extra manual controls. Role-based setup requires custom work, and the platform is not designed for regulated-industry review steps. Furthermore, vendor oversight records should be reviewed on their own against U.S. bank-grade third-party risk management standards.
Bottom Line: Ashby is designed for tech-sector hiring. In that case, financial services employers would need to build substantial extra compliance setup to meet FCRA, FDIC, and related duties.
9. Personio
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 1/5
Personio is a European mid-market HR platform primarily deployed in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Its background screening setups are European-focused with limited depth for U.S. legal rules. U.S. FCRA steps are not natively supported, and FDIC Section 19, SEC Rule 17f-2 fingerprinting, and related compliance steps are outside its core design scope. Vendor oversight records should be reviewed on their own for U.S. bank-grade third-party risk management alignment.
Bottom Line: Personio's European design focus presents significant compliance complexity for U.S.-regulated financial services employers, who would need to build entirely manual compliance setup.
10. Recruitee (now Tellent)
Screening-Friendliness Rating: 1/5
Recruitee, now operating under the Tellent brand, is a European mid-market ATS with limited U.S. presence. Background screening setups are limited to primarily third-party API connections. FCRA adverse action steps are not natively supported, and FDIC, NCUA, and FINRA-related compliance steps are outside its design scope. Vendor oversight records should be reviewed on their own against U.S. bank-grade third-party risk management standards.
Bottom Line: Recruitee/Tellent presents significant compliance complexity for U.S. regulated financial services employers, requiring substantial manual compliance setup to meet applicable duties.
Best ATS for Background Screening Compliance in Financial Services: Summary
Financial services HR and compliance teams benefit most from ATS platforms with certified background screening partner networks that support documented adverse action steps, role-tiered screening packages, and auditable review records. The following summary reflects editorial reviews of integration depth and does not constitute a legal compliance finding for any specific employer.
| ATS Platform | Screening Integration | FCRA Workflow | Role-Based Config | Audit Trail/Docs | Vendor Governance | Total (/25) |
| Workday | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 |
| SAP SuccessFactors | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 25 |
| UKG Pro | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 23 |
| iCIMS | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 20 |
| Greenhouse | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 20 |
| Zoho Recruit | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Breezy HR | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Ashby | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 10 |
| Personio | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| Recruitee/Tellent | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
In summary, platforms with certified partner networks provide stronger technical setup for FCRA adverse action records, role-tiered screening packages, and audit-ready review steps. On the other hand, platforms relying on manual export processes or loosely connected API setups require employers to build much more compliance setup, increasing operational risk and audit exposure.
Why Background Screening Is a Regulatory Control in Financial Services, Not Just an HR Step
Background screening in financial services is a compliance control embedded in federal and state regulation. In other words, the ATS managing your hiring pipeline must be capable of supporting it, or your HR team absorbs the compliance gap manually.
Key regulatory rules include:
- FDIC Section 19 (12 U.S.C. § 1829) prohibits FDIC-insured depository firms from employing any person convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering without prior FDIC written consent. Documented review steps are required and must support specific review consistent with EEOC guidance. 2022 revised procedures include de minimis exceptions for certain minor offenses.
- NCUA §1785(d) creates equivalent employment and participation limits for federally insured credit unions.
- FINRA fingerprinting under SEC Rule 17f-2 (17 CFR § 240.17f-2) requires fingerprinting of certain associated persons of registered broker-dealers. This rule applies specifically to broker-dealers registered under the Securities Exchange Act. Firms should confirm whether it applies to their registration status.
- FCRA compliance requires a multi-step adverse action process embedded in the ATS pipeline: (1) a pre-adverse action notice; (2) a copy of the consumer report; (3) the FTC/CFPB-prescribed rights summary; (4) a reasonable dispute period (commonly five business days minimum); and (5) a final adverse action notice if the employer proceeds. Employers remain legally responsible for each step regardless of ATS features.
- EEOC specific review (April 2012 Enforcement Guidance) requires employers to consider the nature of the crime, time elapsed, and job-relatedness before making adverse decisions based on criminal history. ATS review steps must support this documentation, not automate blanket disqualifications.
- Credit check limits apply in multiple states, including New York (Labor Law § 201-d), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and several cities. Each location defines its own scope and exemptions for financial services roles.
- Ban-the-box and fair chance hiring laws restrict when employers may inquire about criminal history. Over 37 states and 150+ cities and counties have enacted such laws, directly affecting when ATS platforms may trigger background check requests and display criminal history findings.
- Arrest record vs. conviction record distinctions must be reflected in ATS review steps. States including California, New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan restrict or prohibit employer use of arrest records that did not result in conviction.
- Lookback period limits restrict how far back a consumer report may reach. California, for example, restricts reporting of most criminal convictions older than seven years for positions below a salary threshold.
- Interagency third-party risk management guidance (Federal Register, June 2023) requires banks and credit unions to evaluate background screening vendors and ATS setups as vendor oversight records subject to supervisory review.
- AML/OFAC program oversight expectations reinforce the need for auditable screening steps across regulated hiring functions.
When an ATS cannot support these steps natively, HR teams rely on manual workarounds that create documentation failures regulators will find.
Disclaimer: The platform reviews in this article are editorial evaluations based on publicly available information and do not constitute legal compliance findings. All platform features should be verified on their own with the vendor before reliance. This article does not constitute legal advice. Financial services employers should engage qualified employment and compliance counsel before making ATS selection or compliance setup decisions.
References
- FDIC Section 19 Revised Statement of Policy (2022). https://www.fdic.gov/news/financial-institution-letters/2022/fil22018.html
- SEC Rule 17f-2 (Cornell LII). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.17f-2
- FTC: Using Consumer Reports -- What Employers Need to Know. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/using-consumer-reports-what-employers-need-know
- CFPB: Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/consumer-tools/credit-reports-and-scores/consumer-reporting-companies/
- EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII (April 25, 2012). https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/background-checks-what-employers-need-know
- New York Labor Law § 201-d (verify current text at legislation.nysenate.gov; confirm effective dates with legal counsel).
- DLA Piper: New York State Credit Check Restriction. https://knowledge.dlapiper.com
- Interagency Guidance on Third-Party Relationships: Risk Management (Federal Register, June 2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/06/06/2023-09404/interagency-guidance-on-third-party-relationships-risk-management
- California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1786 et seq.
- California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1785 et seq.
- California Labor Code § 1024.5 (employer credit check restrictions).
- EEOC Record Retention Requirements, 29 CFR § 1602.14.
ABOUT THE CREATOR
Charm Paz, CHRP
Recruiter & Editor
Charm Paz is an HR and compliance professional at GCheck, working at the intersection of background screening, fair hiring, and regulatory compliance. She holds both FCRA Core and FCRA Advanced certifications and supports organizations in navigating complex employment regulations with clarity and confidence.
With a background in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and hands-on experience translating policy into practice, Charm focuses on building ethical, compliant, and human-centered hiring systems that strengthen decision-making and support long-term organizational health.
