For RPO and outsourced recruiting teams in India
Run four client accounts withoutcarrying four hiring bars in your head
It is 6:40pm and you are writing the fourth status mail of the day, each one in a different format, none of it new information. Recruitkar keeps every account on its own board, so where a req stands is something you read, not something you rebuild from memory.
What running four engagements actually costs you
The same week, twice
One Monday, four accounts, two versions of it
Four tabs, a WhatsApp thread with the client SPOC, and a tracker sheet last touched on Thursday. You reconstruct each answer, then retype it into four different reporting formats.
Every client has its own board, and every req on it sits across seven stages: new, shortlisted, contacted, interviewing, offered, hired, rejected. You read where things stand instead of reassembling it.
The bars live in your head. You carry the banking client's must-haves into the product client's shortlist for twenty minutes before you catch yourself.
Each candidate is scored against that client's actual JD across about ten dimensions, with a verdict from strong fit to not fit, matched and missing skills named individually, and red flags.
You remember a strong QA lead from the March drive. Twenty minutes digging through old mail for the CV, and no idea whether he clears this client's bar or only your memory of him.
Put him on the new req for no credits and he is re-scored against that JD. Strong fit for one account, borderline for the next, and you see which before you submit.
Either you re-read everything yourself at 11pm, or you find out how the profile landed from the client's reply.
Internal review: a member's candidate cannot reach a client until a teammate approves it. Per-member credit caps, so nobody spends the month's budget by Wednesday.
Five CVs attached to one mail, a week of follow-ups, then one line of feedback covering all five.
Share only the fields you choose to show. The client's approve, reject or note comes straight back onto that candidate, one verdict per profile.
The part only an RPO deals with
Every client in its own clean lane
You are not one recruiter with one pipeline. You are four recruiting functions run by one person who has to remember which rules belong to which account. One client counts product-company background and nothing else. One will take anybody who can join inside 20 days. One has never said it aloud but bins every profile above a CTC line you worked out yourself. When all of that sits in one flat candidate list, the accounts leak into each other: a profile submitted against the wrong bar, a March CV surfacing in front of a client it was never meant for, a status number that is actually last week's. Recruitkar starts at the client, then the department, then the job, so a candidate you worked for one account does not appear inside another one unless you put them there. And when you do put them there, they are judged again for that client rather than carried over on your say-so.
Four accounts, four boards, four sets of numbers
Each client keeps its own departments, its own jobs, its own candidates and its own seven-stage board. Where a req stands is something you open, not something you rebuild on a Monday morning. Nothing from one account is sitting inside another one waiting to be sent by mistake.
The same person, judged again for the next client
Moving a candidate onto another of your own jobs costs nothing, and they are re-scored against that JD. The QA lead who was a strong fit for the banking account can come back borderline for the product one, with the missing skills named. You learn that before the submission rather than after the rejection.
Nothing reaches a client until you have seen it
Switch on internal review and a member's candidate is blocked from client share until a teammate approves it, in whichever direction your team works. When it does go out, only the fields you picked go with it. The client's approve, reject or note lands back on the candidate, so the account's decisions live with the profile instead of in your inbox.
In practice
How it works, when you are running four of them
Set the accounts up the way you already think about them
Client, then department, then job. The four engagements you run become four separate spaces, with the reqs sitting under the department that raised them. Then paste the real JD for each req, not the two-liner the hiring manager sent on WhatsApp, because every score after this is measured against it.
Fill each req from wherever those candidates already are
Tick applicants on the Naukri, Indeed or Shine tab and the browser extension brings them across. Upload the resume folder from the last drive. Drop the CSV from your old ATS. Pull a LinkedIn profile, put up a shareable apply link, or let AI discovery search external profile databases. It all lands in one ranked pipeline for that job, with the same person from three sources merged into one card.
Work the top of each list, then submit with a trail
Read the verdicts and red flags, then email, WhatsApp or AI voice call from the same screen. Send an AI voice or video interview in one of 11-plus languages and get back a recording, proctoring events, a scorecard and a recommendation, or book a human panel through Google Calendar or Outlook on Meet, Teams, Zoom or in office. Have a teammate approve the profile, share only the fields the client needs, and let their decision come back onto the card.
What it costs, in credits
Straight answers
Will this work for me?
“My clients' data cannot mix. If a profile I sourced for one account turns up inside another client's pipeline, I lose the account.”
The structure is client, then department, then job. A candidate you worked for one client does not surface inside another client's pipeline unless you put them there. The honest limit: that is separation inside your own workspace, not a contractual firewall. Anyone on your team with access can still move a profile across, because for an RPO that reuse is usually the point. Internal review and per-member credit caps are the controls; the discipline about exclusivity clauses is still yours.
“Every client scores candidates differently. One AI score cannot serve four different bars.”
There is no single score. Each candidate is measured against the actual JD on that req across about ten dimensions, and the same person put on another client's job is scored again from scratch. The honest limit: it reads the JD you paste. If a client's real bar lives in the hiring manager's head and never made it into the document, it will not be in the score either. Paste a two-line JD and those dimensions come back empty instead of confident, which at least tells you what is missing.
“I am judged on fills and quality at the same time. Anything that just hands me more candidates makes my ratio worse.”
More candidates is not the offer. The list arrives ranked with a verdict per profile, matched and missing skills named, and red flags, so what changes is which five you submit rather than how many. Sourcing credits are refunded for matches below the quality threshold, so nobody is paid for volume that fails the bar either.
“I have six recruiters. One of them will fire off a half-baked profile to a client, or burn the month's credits in a week.”
Turn on internal review and a member's candidate cannot be shared with a client until a teammate approves it. Set a per-member credit cap and nobody spends past their line. You still get the speed of six people working; the client-facing step is the one that needs a second pair of eyes, and that is the one that is gated.
“Migrating four live accounts into a new tool in the middle of a quarter is not happening.”
Do not migrate. Take one live req from one account, paste the real JD, and pull in the applicants already sitting on it with the browser extension. Judge it on that one req. The honest limit: there is no two-way sync with your existing ATS. Candidates come in by import, through the extension, resumes, CSV or LinkedIn, and whatever history stays in the old system stays there unless you export it.
Questions
Asked before you ask them
The QA lead I sourced for my BFSI account looks right for a product client's req that opened yesterday. What does that cost, and does his score follow him?
No cost. Reusing a candidate on another of your own jobs is free. His score does not follow him: he is re-scored against the new JD, so a strong fit for the banking req can come back borderline for the product one, with the missing skills spelled out. Same profile, different verdict, no second charge.
The client wants a status on all four open reqs by Thursday. What do I actually have to work with?
That client's board. Their departments, their jobs and their candidates sit in their own space, and every candidate sits in one of seven stages: new, shortlisted, contacted, interviewing, offered, hired, rejected. You are reading a position rather than reconstructing one from a tracker somebody stopped updating. The interview scorecard and the client's own approve, reject or note sit on the candidate card, so the detail behind a stage is on the profile itself.
Two of my recruiters work the same account and keep pulling the same person from Naukri and LinkedIn. What happens?
Those arrivals merge into one card with one score and one history, because the pipeline de-duplicates across every source. He does not get called twice by two of your people and he does not get the same blast twice, which is the version of this that actually costs you the account.
I have a 300-seat BPO drive for one client. Can I just mail all of them?
Yes: bulk send with merge fields, across a deliverability pool, with bounces monitored so you can see what failed. It is 1 credit per candidate ever, not per message, so the four follow-ups that drive actually needs cost nothing more. Two limits worth saying plainly: it is a blast tool, not per-candidate AI-written personalisation, and no domain warming service comes bundled with it.