§ The result
HighMatch leads AmazingHiring on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HighMatch scores 43 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0, a 6-point gap across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. HighMatch leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so AmazingHiring is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 HighMatch leads is Data Governance Disclosure, AmazingHiring 50 to HighMatch 52. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (AmazingHiring 48, HighMatch 60) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, HighMatch 45), 31% of the weighted advantage HighMatch builds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HighMatch under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only HighMatch is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | HighMatch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · HighMatch 45
2.0 weighted points to HighMatch
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · HighMatch 30
1.4 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · HighMatch 60
1.4 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · HighMatch 40
0.8 weighted points to HighMatch
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · HighMatch 58
0.5 weighted points to HighMatch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · HighMatch 52
0.3 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -6.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -6 beside that -6.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus HighMatch.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | HighMatch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 40 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 43 (F) | -6 | -6.5 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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 | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources 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; HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HighMatch 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.
§ Where next