§ The result
Hireology leads AmazingHiring on all 7 criteria.
Under rubric v1.0, Hireology (ATS-integrated) opens a 20-point lead on AmazingHiring (Sourcing), 57 to 37. Of the 7 criteria AmazingHiring wins none, and the narrowest lead Hireology holds is on Data Governance Disclosure, AmazingHiring 50 to Hireology 52. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 22, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 56% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 7 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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Hireology is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Hireology 83
11.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Hireology 59
3.1 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Hireology 50
3.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Hireology 57
1.1 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Hireology 58
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Hireology 52
0.3 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -19.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -20 beside that -19.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 83 | -61 | -11.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 52 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 57 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 59 | -26 | -3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 57 (F) | -20 | -19.7 |
§ 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 | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 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; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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