Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
AmazingHiring vs Arya by Leoforce
AmazingHiring
A technical-talent sourcing platform that aggregates public developer profiles from 50+ networks (GitHub, Stack Overflow, Kaggle, LinkedIn) and uses AI to rank and surface candidates for recruiters, with verified-contact retrieval and outreach automation.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Arya by Leoforce
Leoforce's AI agents, successors to its long-running Arya matching platform, source candidates from a proprietary talent database, job boards and customers' ATS records, score and rank them for fit, engage them by email and SMS, prescreen career-site visitors and deliver pre-vetted, interview-ready applicants.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Arya by Leoforce takes the total, AmazingHiring takes more of the criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Arya by Leoforce and AmazingHiring finish 1 point apart, 38 to 37, as two Sourcing entries. AmazingHiring leads more of the criteria than Arya by Leoforce — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Arya by Leoforce leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Arya by Leoforce. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (AmazingHiring 22, Arya by Leoforce 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 82% of the weighted advantage Arya by Leoforce holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- AmazingHiring5
- Arya by Leoforce2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 40
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
AmazingHiring and Arya by Leoforce are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Arya by Leoforce is in scope of
| Record | AmazingHiring | Arya by Leoforce |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight47% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring22Arya by Leoforce403.2 weighted points to Arya by Leoforce
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight62% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring35Arya by Leoforce301.0 weighted points to AmazingHiring
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight73% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring30Arya by Leoforce250.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight83% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring48Arya by Leoforce540.7 weighted points to Arya by Leoforce
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight90% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring52Arya by Leoforce460.5 weighted points to AmazingHiring
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight96% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring33Arya by Leoforce300.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
- 7
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
AmazingHiring50Arya by Leoforce480.3 weighted points to AmazingHiring
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -1.1.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Arya by Leoforce, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Arya by Leoforce | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 40 | -18 | -3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 46 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37F | 38F | -1 | -1.1 |
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 | AmazingHiring | Arya by Leoforce | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 26 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Arya by Leoforce has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 31 for Arya by Leoforce, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Arya by Leoforce last reviewed
- September 25, 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.