Independent ownership review · August 2026

Who owns LinkedIn and its alternatives

A list of four alternatives can involve fewer independent companies than it appears to. Ownership shapes how a platform earns money, and how it earns money shapes which features stay free.

Ownership at a glance

Microsoft Recruit Holdings New Work SE Bending Spoons Adobe Independent LinkedIn Indeed Glassdoor Xing Meetup Behance Wellfound Substack Two of the services most often listed as alternatives to each other, Indeed and Glassdoor, share a parent. Wellfound was separated from AngelList in late 2022 and operates as its own hiring platform. Meetup changed hands several times, most recently to Bending Spoons in early 2024. Ownership as publicly reported and reviewed August 2026. Corporate structures change; verify before relying on this.

LinkedIn

Microsoft, acquired 2016
Earns from
Recruiting products, advertising, sales tools and consumer subscriptions
Consequence
Most revenue comes from employers and sellers, which is why the free member profile is generous while search and outbound messaging are constrained

Indeed and Glassdoor

Recruit Holdings
Earns from
Employers paying to post, sponsor listings and access candidates
Consequence
Free for job seekers by design, with visibility of a listing depending partly on employer spend

Xing

New Work SE, listed in Germany
Earns from
Member subscriptions and employer recruiting products in German-speaking markets
Consequence
Product decisions follow a regional market rather than a global one, which is the reason it holds ground there

Meetup

Bending Spoons, acquired 2024
Earns from
Organiser subscriptions rather than attendee fees
Consequence
The paying customer is the person running a group, so cost changes affect group availability rather than attendance directly

Wellfound

Separated from AngelList, 2022
Earns from
Employers hiring through the platform
Consequence
Free for candidates, with salary and equity disclosure used as a differentiator rather than required by the platform's economics

Publishing platforms

Independently operated
Earns from
A share of what publishers earn, rather than an upfront fee
Consequence
Interests align with the publisher succeeding, and the cost is invisible until you are earning

Why the business model predicts the product

Who pays determines what stays free. Where employers fund the platform, job seeker features remain free and employer-facing tools carry the price. Where members fund it, member features get paywalled sooner. Neither arrangement is better, and knowing which one you are inside explains most feature decisions that otherwise look arbitrary.

Common ownership narrows real choice. Two platforms under one parent may still be genuinely different products serving different needs. But if your reason for using several is to avoid dependence on a single company, it is worth knowing where the boundaries actually fall.

Ownership changes hands. Several platforms in this category have moved between owners more than once, and each change has brought pricing and product shifts. A comparison that describes ownership is describing a snapshot, which is a reason to check rather than a reason to ignore it.