§ The result
Draup leads AmazingHiring by 5 points.
Draup scores 42 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. Draup leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while AmazingHiring leads 2, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (AmazingHiring 35, Draup 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
AmazingHiring and Draup are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Draup is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Draup 48
2.6 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Draup 33
2.0 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Draup 58
1.2 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Draup 25
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Draup 54
0.6 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Draup 28
0.6 weighted points to AmazingHiring
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Draup 57
0.4 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.1 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 -5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 33 | -11 | -2.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 28 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 42 (F) | -5 | -5.4 |
§ 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 | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate 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 | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup 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: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup 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.
§ Where next