§ The result
4 points separate AmazingHiring and Qureos.
AmazingHiring (Sourcing) edges Qureos (Screening) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 37 to 33. Qureos takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for AmazingHiring, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. The advantage AmazingHiring holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (AmazingHiring 22, Qureos 12, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points AmazingHiring gains across the 4 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Qureos 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 Qureos is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2011 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 31% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Qureos 12
1.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
20% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Qureos 28
1.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Qureos 44
0.9 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Qureos 25
0.8 weighted points to AmazingHiring
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Qureos 54
0.7 weighted points to Qureos
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Qureos 35
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.8 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 +3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 12 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 44 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 54 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 33 (F) | +4 | +3.9 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
AmazingHiring has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
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 Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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