HomeCompareAmazingHiring vs Pillar

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

AmazingHiring vs Pillar

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

3 points separate Pillar and AmazingHiring.

Pillar (Screening) edges AmazingHiring (Sourcing) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 37. AmazingHiring and Pillar each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split Pillar holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — AmazingHiring 22, Pillar 38 — and at an 18% weight it carries 67% of the weighted advantage Pillar holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Pillar under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and NYC LL 144. Only Pillar is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordAmazingHiringPillar
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20112019

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 55% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    AmazingHiring 22 · Pillar 38

    2.9 weighted points to Pillar

  2. 20% weight · 82% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    AmazingHiring 35 · Pillar 42

    1.4 weighted points to Pillar

  3. 15% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    AmazingHiring 50 · Pillar 45

    0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    AmazingHiring 52 · Pillar 50

    0.2 weighted points to AmazingHiring

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -3.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.4.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is AmazingHiring minus Pillar.

CategoryWeightAmazingHiringPillarΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3542-7-1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2238-16-2.9
FRIA Support15%3030--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5045+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%4848--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3333--
Customer Documentation8%5250+2+0.2
Total100%37 (F)40 (F)-3-3.4

§ 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.

CriterionWeightAmazingHiringPillar
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%1121Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%1121Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11
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; Pillar 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 Pillar, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
AmazingHiring last reviewed
July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Pillar last reviewed
June 7, 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.