The Short Version
These two tools are usually compared as alternatives. They are not. One answers where do I apply, the other answers how do I not get filtered out. If you get those backwards you will spend weeks polishing a resume nobody has asked for, or firing a generic one at good listings.
No listings, plenty of applications sent, no replies - your problem is Hirely's.
Good resume, nothing worth applying to - your problem is getAIwork's.
Side by Side
|
getAIwork |
Hirely |
| What it is |
Screened board of AI contract work |
End-to-end application pipeline |
| Answers |
Where should I apply? |
Will this application land? |
| Free tier |
Whole board, no signup, no card |
Full features, bring your own API key |
| Paid |
$49/mo membership - courses and certification, not the board |
$12/mo Pro |
| Covers |
Evaluation, annotation, expert interviews, AI training |
Any role you paste in |
| Standout |
Licensed Profession as its own filter |
Apply / stretch / skip fit score that does not flatter you |
What getAIwork Does That Nothing Else Here Does
It carries Licensed Profession as a background filter, alongside generalist, coding, STEM and language. That one dropdown is the whole reason it exists. A radiologist, a solicitor or a chartered accountant can filter to work priced on the credential they already hold, rather than on whether they know Python.
The payoff shows up in the listings. Two on the same screen at the time of writing:
- Robot Whisperer - Skills & Data (via micro1) - beginner, AI data work, remote. Listed pay $10-$20/hour.
- Cybersecurity Practitioner: Paid Expert Interviews (via Mercor) - intermediate, US. Listed pay $125-$175/hour.
Same board, same day, 10x apart. No amount of resume tailoring closes that gap. Which listings you are looking at matters more than how well you apply to them, and that is the case for the board being the first tool you open rather than the last.
The board is free, needs no account, and shows its last refresh to the minute. The $49/month membership around it is a separate product and a separate decision - our full getAIwork review covers what is and is not proven about it.
What Hirely Does That a Board Cannot
Once you have a listing worth wanting, getAIwork's job is finished and Hirely's starts.
The apply / stretch / skip fit score is the part worth the most. Most tools in this category inflate your chances because telling users they are a poor fit does not sell subscriptions. A score that tells you to skip saves you the hour you were about to spend.
The per-bullet resume review with diff highlights keeps you editing your own narrative instead of accepting a rewrite wholesale, and the cover letter tool flags AI-tell phrases and regenerates sentence by sentence - which matters more every month, as the people reading applications get better at spotting generated text.
The BYOK free tier is a genuine privacy position: bring your own OpenAI key and your resume never leaves your browser. It also adds friction for non-technical users, which is the honest trade.
Full detail in our Hirely vs Teal comparison, which covers the application-tracking side properly.
Where Each One Stops
getAIwork is an aggregator. Its cards say "via micro1" and "via Mercor" - it screens and organises listings from other platforms rather than originating them. That is useful curation, and it also means you could go to those sources directly for nothing. Nobody should pay a membership expecting exclusive listings.
getAIwork is narrow by design. Evaluation, annotation, expert interviews, AI training. If you want a salaried machine learning engineering role, this is the wrong board.
Hirely has no listings. It is a pipeline, not a source. It cannot tell you that expert interviews pay 10x annotation work, because it never sees a board.
Hirely's ecosystem is thinner than Teal or Jobscan, with no direct ATS or LinkedIn integration yet.
Decision Framework
- You hold a professional licence and want AI income without retraining - getAIwork first, and go straight to the Licensed Profession filter. This is the single clearest use case either tool has.
- You are applying steadily and hearing nothing back - Hirely. Your problem is the application, not the pipeline, and the fit score will tell you within minutes whether you are aiming at the wrong roles.
- You have a polished resume and nothing worth sending it to - getAIwork. Ten minutes on the board beats another hour on the resume.
- You are starting from zero - both, in order. Board first to see what the work actually is and pays, Hirely second once something is worth applying to.
- You are chasing salaried AI engineering roles - neither is built for that. Hirely still helps with the applications; the board will not have the listings.
- Budget is the constraint - both have real free tiers. The board is entirely free, and Hirely's BYOK tier is full-featured. You can run this whole stack for the cost of API tokens.
The Stack
- getAIwork, ten minutes each morning. Filter to your background and level, scan what is new, note anything worth wanting.
- Hirely on each one. Run the fit score first - if it says skip, believe it and move on.
- Hirely again for the resume pass and cover letter on the ones that clear.
- Back to the board tomorrow.
One application a day against listings you actually want beats twenty against listings you found by searching "AI jobs". That is the whole method, and it needs one tool from each half of this comparison.
Verdict
There is no winner here, and treating it as a contest is how people end up with half a job search. getAIwork answers where the work is and what it pays. Hirely answers whether your application will survive contact with a screener.
If you are forced to pick one, pick by which half is currently broken. No replies means the application is the problem. Nothing worth applying to means the pipeline is. Most people who think they have the first problem actually have the second.
getAIwork listing and reviews · Hirely listing and reviews
Disclosure: getAIwork is an AIToolsRecap advertiser. This comparison was written to the same standard as our unpaid coverage and was not shown to them before publication.