§ The result
Workable leads Adaface by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Workable, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 48 and Adaface, filed under Assessment, on 39, 9 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Workable: Workable is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Adaface on FRIA Support. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Adaface 22, Workable 42, 18% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Workable builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Adaface
Adaface runs chatbot-led 'conversational' skills tests for 500+ roles that score candidates automatically as pass, borderline pass or fail on benchmarked scorecards, backed by webcam, screen and IP proctoring and an AI résumé parser.
Vendor profile
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Adaface is filed under Assessment AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Adaface is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Adaface | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 34% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Adaface 22 · Workable 42
3.6 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Adaface 38 · Workable 55
3.4 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Adaface 50 · Workable 62
1.4 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Adaface 52 · Workable 58
0.9 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Adaface 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to Adaface
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Adaface 38 · Workable 42
0.5 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Adaface 58 · Workable 56
0.2 weighted points to Adaface
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -8.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -9 beside that -8.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Adaface minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Adaface | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 42 | -20 | -3.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 39 (F) | 48 (F) | -9 | -8.9 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Adaface | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Adaface has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for Adaface, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Adaface last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable last reviewed
- June 7, 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.
§ Where next