Independent AI Hiring Vendor Scoring

AI hiring tools, scored against the regulations.

HireAIScore rates the vendors building hiring AI on a published rubric tied to the EU AI Act, the Colorado AI Act, NYC Local Law 144, and Illinois HB 3773. The rubric is open. Scoring is evaluator-driven, not crowdsourced.

No vendor can pay to be listed, scored higher, or removed. Reviewed at least every six months.

Read the methodology→How we score→Editorial policy→

§ 01 — Rankings

The 10 most-deployed AI hiring vendors, ranked by rubric score.

Scores from public evidence, technical files where provided, and vendor questionnaires.

Filter:
#1
Greenhouse
ATS-integrated
Score 67/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on article 11 technical documentation
Documentation gap: customer documentation
D
#2
Eightfold AI
Sourcing
Score 64/100 · Reviewed May 21, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
D
#3
SmartRecruiters
ATS-integrated
Score 62/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
D
#4
Beamery
Sourcing
Score 61/100 · Reviewed May 21, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: fria support
D
#5
HeyMilo
Screening
Score 61/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
D
#6
Sense
Screening
Score 58/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
F
#7
HireVue
Video interview
Score 58/100 · Reviewed May 21, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
F
#8
Tezi
Screening
Score 58/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
F
#9
Findem
Sourcing
Score 58/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
F
#10
Apriora (Alex)
Video interview
Score 57/100 · Reviewed Jun 7, 2026
Strong on bias audit transparency
Documentation gap: customer documentation
F

Scores reflect publicly available evidence as of the last review date. Vendors may respond to scores in writing; published responses appear on their profiles.

See full rankings (50+ vendors planned)→

§ 02 — Methodology

How we score.

Open rubric. Versioned. No vendor input on weights.

Each vendor is scored against 7 categories that map directly to the text of the EU AI Act and the four US instruments we track. Categories are weighted by the regulatory exposure they create for deployers — technical documentation and bias audit weigh most.

We work from public evidence first: data sheets, model cards, audit reports, terms of service, and DPIAs. We then request the vendor’s Annex IV-style technical file. We do not score on marketing claims, and we do not score on conversations held under NDA.

The full rubric — every sub-criterion, scoring rubric, and version history — is published. When the rubric changes, scores are re-run and the prior version is preserved.

Read the full methodology→
  1. 01
    Article 11 Technical DocumentationArticle 11 · Annex IV
    20 pt
  2. 02
    Bias Audit TransparencyNYC LL 144 · CO SB 24-205
    18 pt
  3. 03
    FRIA SupportArticle 27 · EU AI Act
    15 pt
  4. 04
    Data Governance DisclosureArticle 10
    15 pt
  5. 05
    Human Oversight DesignArticle 14
    12 pt
  6. 06
    Post-Market MonitoringArticle 72
    12 pt
  7. 07
    Customer DocumentationArticle 13 · IL HB 3773
    8 pt

§ 03 — Categories

6 categories of AI hiring tool.

A vendor can appear in more than one. Scoring is per-category.

§ 03.01

ATS-integrated AI

AI features baked into the system of record — candidate ranking, recruiter productivity, and skills matching surfaced inside the ATS itself.

25 vendorsView category →

§ 03.02

Video interview AI

Asynchronous video platforms that record candidate responses, often with AI-driven scoring of competencies or traits.

20 vendorsView category →

§ 03.03

Candidate sourcing AI

Tools that find, rank, and match candidates against requisitions — often built on long-lived candidate graphs or aggregated public data.

29 vendorsView category →

§ 03.04

Assessment AI

Pre-employment assessments — cognitive, behavioural, situational judgement, and games-based — that produce candidate scores for selection.

24 vendorsView category →

§ 03.05

Screening AI

Resume parsing, knockout questions, and structured pre-screening flows that decide who moves to a recruiter.

51 vendorsView category →

§ 03.06

Scheduling AI

Conversational and rule-based systems that handle interview booking, reschedules, and candidate communication.

12 vendorsView category →

§ 04 — Regulations

The regulations we score against.

Five instruments shape the obligations on AI hiring tools. The rubric anchors every sub-criterion to a specific article and citation, so scores remain auditable.

§ 05 — Latest analysis

Writing on what changed this month.

Reading the regulations, the audits, and the litigation.

May 21, 2026EU AI Act

Annex IV section-by-section: what AI hiring vendors must document

A practical walkthrough of the nine sections of Annex IV and how they map to what AI hiring vendors actually publish today.

Read→
May 21, 2026NYC LL 144

What makes a defensible NYC LL 144 bias audit

After Mobley's second amended complaint, 'we have a bias audit' is no longer sufficient. Here's what makes one defensible.

Read→
May 21, 2026Mobley v. Workday

Mobley v. Workday: what the second amended complaint actually changes

Until January, Mobley was a vendor-liability case. With the second amended complaint, it's also an audit-methodology case — and that affects every vendor.

Read→
All analysis→

§ 06 — Tools

Two free tools.

No email gate. No upsell.

Free

Quick check: is your hiring AI high-risk?

Five questions, mapped to Annex III §4(a). Tells you whether the system you're evaluating likely falls under the EU AI Act's high-risk regime — and which obligations attach.

Free

Vendor not listed? Request a profile.

Submit the vendor and the product. We confirm the scoring queue position within two business days and publish the profile within 14 days. We do not accept payment to expedite.

Request a vendor profile→

§ 07 — Editorial integrity

How this directory works.

Plain language. Structural, not buried.

The Masthead

An independent directory, by policy and by design.

HireAIScore is operated by Casework, an AI-governance consulting firm. The cross-link exists. The independence is structural: no vendor can pay for placement, score adjustment, or removal — ever — and when Caseworkhas consulted with a rated vendor in the past 24 months, that relationship is disclosed on the vendor’s profile.

Article I

Scoring is evaluator-driven. Every score is assigned by the HireAIScore editorial team against the published rubric, on the basis of public evidence we can show. No user reviews. No crowdsourced ratings.

Article II

No paid placement, ever. No advertising. No sponsored entries. No expedited review for money. No removal for money.

Article III

The rubric is open. Every sub-criterion, weight, and scoring decision is published. Versioned. Diffs preserved.

Article IV

Vendor responses are published. Vendors have a written right of response. Responses appear on the vendor profile, alongside the score.

Article V

Casework relationships are disclosed. When Casework has consulted with a rated vendor in the past 24 months, the engagement is disclosed on that vendor's profile.

Article VI

Methodology is updated openly. Major rubric changes prompt a re-score. Prior versions remain accessible. Updates are dated.

Read the full editorial policy →— The editors