HomeCompareAmazingHiring vs Loxo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

AmazingHiring vs Loxo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

AmazingHiring and Loxo tie at 37.

AmazingHiring and Loxo tie at 37 under rubric v1.0 inside the Sourcing cohort, arriving there from different criteria. AmazingHiring leads 2 of the 7 criteria and Loxo 3, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. AmazingHiring takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, Loxo 30), which is 74% of the weighted advantage AmazingHiring holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, AmazingHiring 33 to Loxo 40.

§ The record

AmazingHiring and Loxo 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.

RecordAmazingHiringLoxo
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20112012

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 34% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    AmazingHiring 35 · Loxo 30

    1.0 weighted points to AmazingHiring

  2. 12% weight · 63% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    AmazingHiring 33 · Loxo 40

    0.8 weighted points to Loxo

  3. 8% weight · 79% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    AmazingHiring 52 · Loxo 58

    0.5 weighted points to Loxo

  4. 18% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    AmazingHiring 22 · Loxo 20

    0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring

  5. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    AmazingHiring 48 · Loxo 50

    0.2 weighted points to Loxo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that -0.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is AmazingHiring minus Loxo.

CategoryWeightAmazingHiringLoxoΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3530+5+1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%2220+2+0.4
FRIA Support15%3030--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5050--
Human Oversight Design12%4850-2-0.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%3340-7-0.8
Customer Documentation8%5258-6-0.5
Total100%37 (F)37 (F)--0.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightAmazingHiringLoxo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1111
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1111
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%126Sources on the vendor's own domain127Audit 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; Loxo has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 37 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Loxo, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
AmazingHiring last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Loxo last reviewed
July 17, 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.