Disclosure: I run OpenJobs AI, which competes in this space. I'll try to be fair, but you should know my biases.

Why I Wrote This

I've been in recruiting tech for five years—BOSS Zhipin in China, then Liepin, now building in the US. Remote work was already normal in Chinese tech before COVID. American companies are still figuring it out.

When I started researching US remote job platforms, I expected to find the same kind of innovation I saw in China. Real-time chat. AI matching. Instant connection between candidates and hiring managers.

What I found instead: a lot of job boards that look like they were built in 2010, charging subscription fees for what should be free features. Some genuinely useful platforms. And a lot of marketing hype about "AI" that's really just keyword matching with a modern interface.

Here's what I actually learned.

The Landscape (Quick Version)

Remote job sites fall into a few buckets:

  • Big generalists with remote filters - LinkedIn, Indeed. Most jobs. Most noise.
  • Dedicated remote boards - FlexJobs, We Work Remotely, Remote OK. Curated. Some charge fees.
  • Startup-focused - Wellfound (ex-AngelList), YC's Work at a Startup. Good if you want equity, less useful otherwise.
  • Freelance marketplaces - Upwork, Fiverr, Toptal. Project work, not employment.

Most of what I'll cover is the dedicated remote boards, because that's where the interesting differences are.

The Big Generalists

LinkedIn and Indeed

You probably already use these. LinkedIn has 860,000+ remote jobs in the US. Indeed aggregates everything. They're not specialized, but they have volume.

My problem with them for remote work: "remote" means different things to different companies. Some mean work-from-home in a specific city. Some mean work-from-anywhere. Some mean "remote for now, but we're calling you back eventually." You have to verify every single listing.

LinkedIn is expensive if you want premium features. Indeed is free for job seekers but pay-to-play for employers who want visibility. Both are worth using as secondary sources, but I wouldn't rely on them exclusively for remote work.

The Dedicated Remote Boards

This is where it gets interesting. These platforms exist specifically for remote work.

FlexJobs: Worth the Subscription?

FlexJobs charges job seekers $60/year. That sounds backwards—why should you pay to find a job? But here's the thing: they hand-screen every listing. No scams. No MLM schemes. No "remote" jobs that are actually "come to our office in Ohio."

I'm generally skeptical of paid job boards, but FlexJobs has the data to back it up: 11-17% application response rates versus 5-8% industry average. If you're in a field where "remote" is frequently misleading—customer service, writing, non-tech roles—it's probably worth it.

We Work Remotely: My Favorite

Created by Basecamp, the company that wrote the book on remote work (literally— "Remote: Office Not Required"). Free for job seekers. High employer pricing ($299-$2,499) means companies are serious.

What I like: they actually believe in remote work. It's not just a filter on a generalist site. The jobs here are from companies that built their culture around distribution. If you're in tech or design, this should be your first stop.

Remote OK: Good for Developers

Built by Pieter Levels, a well-known indie maker. The "#OpenSalaries" initiative requires salary disclosure. Tech stack filtering is useful. The interface is fast and clean.

Downside: high employer pricing ($599-$4,000+) limits volume. But that's also a feature—you're not wading through garbage listings.

The Others

Remote.co: Same founder as FlexJobs. Free. Only 100% remote positions—no hybrid. Good educational content for remote work newcomers.

Himalayas: Newer platform, better UX. The time zone filtering is genuinely useful if you're international. Free basic access, cheap premium.

Jobspresso: Curated, US-focused. 90-day listings instead of 30. Smaller but higher quality.

Working Nomads: Built for actual digital nomads, not just work-from-home. Good email digests if you're passively looking.

Startup Platforms

Wellfound (ex-AngelList Talent)

If you want to work at startups, Wellfound is the place. Salary and equity are visible upfront—no negotiation games. You can see what the options are worth before you apply.

The candidate pool skews young and risk-tolerant. If you're looking for big-company stability, this isn't your platform.

YC Work at a Startup

Access to Y Combinator portfolio companies—Airbnb, Stripe, DoorDash alumni. Single application visible to all YC companies. Free. If you want to work at high-growth startups, this is essential.

Freelance Platforms

These are different from job boards—project work, not employment. But remote freelance is still remote work.

Upwork: Volume Play

18 million freelancers. 5 million clients. $15 billion paid out. It's the Amazon of freelance work—everything's there, quality varies wildly. 10% service fee is reasonable.

Competition can drive rates down. But established freelancers with strong profiles do fine. AI-related work is growing 60% year-over-year.

Toptal: Premium Play

Claims to accept only "top 3%" of applicants. Rigorous 5-stage vetting. Premium rates ($60-150+/hour client-side). Catch: they take 50-55% margin.

If you can pass the screening, it's good work. If you're a client, you're paying for pre-vetted quality.

Fiverr: Gig Economy

Fixed-price "gigs" rather than ongoing relationships. Good for discrete tasks—logo design, voiceovers, writing. 20% commission is steep.

Fiverr's active buyer count dropped 10% in 2024. The low-cost tasks they're known for are exactly what AI is replacing. I'd be worried about their long-term trajectory.

Turing and Crossover: Matching Services

These aren't job boards—they're talent matching platforms. You go through extensive vetting (5-8 hours of testing), they match you with US companies. Premium rates but 50%+ margins.

Works well for senior developers who can pass the screening. Not for early-career people or anyone who hates standardized tests.

Watch Out for Scams

Remote job scams are everywhere. A few red flags:

  • Anyone asking you to pay for training or equipment
  • Immediate "hiring" without proper interviews
  • Communication through Gmail/Yahoo instead of company email
  • Requests for SSN or bank details before a formal offer
  • Check processing schemes (deposit this, wire some back)

The curated platforms (FlexJobs, We Work Remotely, Jobspresso) filter this stuff out. Indeed and LinkedIn don't, really. The time saved not wading through scams is often worth more than any subscription fee.

The China Comparison

I keep thinking about what's different here versus what I saw in China.

BOSS Zhipin had real-time chat between candidates and hiring managers from day one. You could be matched and in a conversation within seconds. Liepin had privacy-protected phone calls. The whole model was built around immediate connection.

American remote job boards feel... slow. Post a job. Wait. Collect resumes. Screen. Email. Wait more. The technology exists to do better, but the platforms haven't really caught up.

Part of it is compliance—US hiring has more documentation requirements. Part of it is cultural—American professionals expect a more formal process. But I think there's room for something faster and more conversational here too.

What I'd Actually Recommend

Depends on who you are:

Tech workers: We Work Remotely first, Remote OK second, Wellfound if you want startups. LinkedIn as backup.

Non-tech remote workers: FlexJobs (worth paying for), Remote.co (free), LinkedIn with careful verification.

Digital nomads: Working Nomads, Himalayas (for time zone filtering), Remote OK.

Freelancers: Upwork for volume, Toptal if you can pass the vetting, avoid Fiverr unless you're selling discrete gigs.

What I Got Wrong

I expected US remote job platforms to be more innovative than they are. Coming from China, where real-time chat was standard by 2016, the email-based workflows here felt archaic.

But they work. Americans are used to them. Cultural change in hiring happens slower than technological capability. The platforms that succeed here aren't necessarily the most advanced—they're the ones that fit how people already expect to hire and get hired.

I'm still figuring out what that means for building better tools. It's not just about better AI. It's about understanding what people actually want from the process.