HomeCompareAdaface vs Equalture

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Adaface vs Equalture

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Equalture leads Adaface on 4 of the 7 criteria.

Equalture finishes 5 points ahead of Adaface under rubric v1.0, 44 to 39, both scored as Assessment entries. Equalture leads 4 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 3 are level, so Adaface is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 4 Equalture leads is Customer Documentation, Adaface 58 to Equalture 60. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Adaface 22, Equalture 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Equalture holds across the 4 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Adaface and Equalture are both filed under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordAdafaceEqualture
Price tierLowHigh
HeadquartersSGNL
Founded20182018

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 62% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Adaface 22 · Equalture 40

    3.2 weighted points to Equalture

  2. 20% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Adaface 38 · Equalture 45

    1.4 weighted points to Equalture

  3. 15% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Adaface 52 · Equalture 55

    0.4 weighted points to Equalture

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Adaface 58 · Equalture 60

    0.2 weighted points to Equalture

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -5.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.3.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Adaface minus Equalture.

CategoryWeightAdafaceEqualtureΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3845-7-1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2240-18-3.2
FRIA Support15%3030--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5255-3-0.4
Human Oversight Design12%5050--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3838--
Customer Documentation8%5860-2-0.2
Total100%39 (F)44 (F)-5-5.3

§ Evidence

Cited sources and documented absences, criterion by criterion.

An absence is a finding, not a blank: the reviewer looked for a named artefact and recorded that it is not located. Where a source sits is a fact about hosting only.

CriterionWeightAdafaceEqualture
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21—41Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%256Sources on the vendor's own domain197Sources on the vendor's own domain

Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Adaface last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Equalture last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team

HireAIScore scores are editorial research, not legal advice, and no vendor pays for placement, scoring or removal — see the methodology, conflicts policy and terms.