Migrate from Zinc to monday CRM

Monday CRM API daily call limits constrain migration throughput for large candidate volumes

Monday CRM enforces a daily API call cap that varies by plan tier — Basic and Standard plans allow 1,000 calls per day, Pro allows 10,000 per day, and Enterprise allows 25,000 per day. Each Zinc candidate with multiple checks generates multiple API calls during migration (one to create the item, one per subitem, one per custom column update). For a Zinc account with 10,000 candidates averaging four checks each, the migration may require 40,000+ API calls — which exceeds the daily limit on any plan except Enterprise. FlitStack spreads the migration across off-peak hours and uses batched subitem creation to minimize daily call consumption, but teams on Basic or Standard plans should expect the full migration to span two to three calendar days rather than a single-session run.

Monday CRM has no native background-check object — screening data requires custom column design

Unlike Zinc, which has first-class objects for candidate records and check requests, Monday CRM is a board-based Work OS with no built-in CRM entity for background checks. Every check type (criminal, employment, education, MVR) must be represented using Monday CRM's column system — Status, Date, Text, Link, Dropdown, or Subitems. This means the Monday CRM admin must decide on a column architecture before migration begins: should each check type be a subitem on the People item, or should it be a set of columns on the main item? FlitStack delivers a column architecture plan during discovery so the Monday CRM schema is ready before data lands. If the wrong architecture is chosen, migrating again to restructure requires a new migration run.

Zinc automations and ATS triggers have no Monday CRM equivalent and must be rebuilt

Zinc automates check initiation based on triggers from connected ATS platforms — for example, when a candidate advances to a specific stage in Greenhouse, Zinc automatically queues a background check. Monday CRM's automation Recipes are trigger-action blocks scoped to board events (when a column changes, when an item is created, on a schedule). There is no Monday CRM native trigger for ATS-stage advancement from Greenhouse or Lever. Teams must rebuild their check-initiation logic using Monday CRM's Recipe builder combined with an integration platform (Zapier, Make, or a custom API connector) or rebuild the workflow in the ATS itself. FlitStack exports Zinc workflow definitions as a rebuild reference document, but the automation logic itself cannot be transferred automatically.

Monday CRM does not have a built-in compliance or audit log for background check records

Zinc is designed as a compliance tool — it maintains immutable check records, audit logs of who accessed results, and chain-of-custody documentation for each screening. Monday CRM is a general work management and CRM platform; it does not have a built-in compliance audit log that tracks who viewed a specific check result or when it was accessed. Teams in regulated industries (healthcare, financial services, government contracting) that rely on Zinc's compliance audit trail will need to evaluate Monday CRM's Activity Log (available on Standard and above, showing item-level changes) as a partial substitute, or configure a third-party audit solution for immutable record access logging.

Monday CRM subitem permissions inherit from the parent item — permission granularity is limited

In Monday CRM, subitems inherit the visibility and editing permissions of their parent item. If a People item is shared with a specific team, all of its check subitems are visible to that same team. There is no way in Monday CRM to share a subitem (e.g., a flagged MVR result) with a subset of users who have access to the parent People item. Zinc allows fine-grained access control per check request. Teams that need to restrict access to specific check results (for example, hiding a failed criminal check from the recruiting team but showing it to HR compliance) will find Monday CRM's permission model less granular and should plan for a permission restructuring as part of the migration.