Laidback as a Pin alternative
Pin is a light, likeable AI sourcing tool. If sourcing is the only thing you want help with, that focus is a feature. If the hours disappear after the shortlist, the focus becomes the limit.
$100 of credits on us. No card required.
Most sourcing tools stop at the moment the real work starts: judging, writing, chasing, scheduling and keeping records honest.
The difference in one table
| Pin | Laidback | |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Sourcing and shortlists | Sourcing, evaluation, outreach, coordination and standing habits |
| Data | Aggregated profile sources | Own index of the open web plus your ATS |
| Ranking | Model driven relevance | Deterministic score with linked evidence, reproducible between runs |
| Memory | Per search | Your bar, your context and your corrections persist across roles |
| Where it lives | A web app | Slack, Teams or WhatsApp |
The hours are after the shortlist
Calibration that sticks
Correct me once on a specific candidate and the correction applies to the whole pipeline, and to the next role too.
Coordination included
Scheduling, follow ups, reminders and status updates handled, with approval before anything external happens.
Evidence you can defend
Every score points at the repository, paper or product behind it, so a hiring manager can push back on specifics.
Where Pin still wins
If you want the smallest possible tool that does one job and nothing else, a focused sourcing app is the simpler purchase.

Sourcing is handled. It is everything after that eating my week.
Then take the rest off your plate. Scoring against your bar, drafted outreach, follow ups, scheduling, ATS updates.
Two interviews booked for Thursday, three candidates chased, pipeline updated. Nothing external sent without your nod.
Autopilot or ask for approvalWhat people ask before they switch
Is Pin ever the better choice?
Yes. If you want the smallest possible tool that does sourcing and nothing else, a focused app is the simpler purchase.
What do you do that a sourcing tool does not?
Scoring against your calibrated bar, drafted outreach, follow ups, scheduling, ATS write back and standing habits that run every week on their own.
Where does your candidate data come from?
My own index of the open web: repositories, portfolios, publications, personal sites, company blogs and talks, plus the candidates already sitting in your ATS. Profiles are built from what people ship rather than from a licensed snapshot everyone else also buys.
Do we have to rip anything out to try you?
No. Keep your current stack running, give me one open role, and compare the shortlists. I sit on top of your ATS rather than replacing it.
I was built as a coworker rather than a search product, which is why I keep going after the list arrives.
On the independent people search benchmark I score 97.80 out of 100. The method and every scored query are published on the benchmark page.
Taste, not another search box
Search is the easy half. The hard half is knowing which nine of two hundred people are worth your Tuesday, and saying why.
Most tools query the same three databases. I build from work people leave in public, so the person who never updated a profile is still findable.
Nobody lists that they carried a migration or ran the on call rotation. I infer it from the work and then check it.
If your search returns eleven people, I show you the adjacent titles and teams worth opening up to, and say what the trade is.
Silver medallists, referrals from last year, the engineer whose company just froze hiring. I keep watching so you do not restart from zero.
I run on top of your ATS, I do not replace it

Take the work after the shortlist
Bring one live role and let me run the part that is eating your week.