§ The result
4 points separate Paradox and AmazingHiring.
Paradox (Scheduling) edges AmazingHiring (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 41 to 37. Paradox leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while AmazingHiring leads 3, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 22, Paradox 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 4 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Paradox is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 59% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Paradox 50
5.0 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Paradox 40
1.0 weighted points to Paradox
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Paradox 25
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Paradox 45
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Paradox 45
0.6 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Paradox 50
0.2 weighted points to Paradox
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Paradox 35
0.2 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 50 | -28 | -5.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 45 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 41 (F) | -4 | -4.5 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 28 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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