§ The result
softgarden leads AmazingHiring on 5 of the 7 criteria.
softgarden scores 42 and AmazingHiring 37 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. softgarden leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so AmazingHiring is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 softgarden leads is Data Governance Disclosure, AmazingHiring 50 to softgarden 54. Post-Market Monitoring is the widest raw gap (AmazingHiring 33, softgarden 44) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (AmazingHiring 35, softgarden 42), 28% of the weighted advantage softgarden builds across the 5 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, softgarden 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 softgarden is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | AmazingHiring | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2011 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · softgarden 42
1.4 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · softgarden 44
1.3 weighted points to softgarden
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · softgarden 58
1.2 weighted points to softgarden
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · softgarden 54
0.6 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -5.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -5.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 22 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 54 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 44 | -11 | -1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 42 (F) | -5 | -5.0 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | Audit 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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