§ The result
2 points separate Workstream and AmazingHiring.
Workstream (Screening) edges AmazingHiring (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 39 to 37. Workstream leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Human Oversight Design, while AmazingHiring leads 3, including FRIA Support. One criterion, Human Oversight Design, is both the widest raw gap (AmazingHiring 48, Workstream 61) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 50% of the weighted advantage Workstream holds 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
AmazingHiring is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workstream 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 Workstream is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | AmazingHiring | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2011 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
AmazingHiring 48 · Workstream 61
1.6 weighted points to Workstream
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
AmazingHiring 35 · Workstream 40
1.0 weighted points to Workstream
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
AmazingHiring 30 · Workstream 27
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
15% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
AmazingHiring 50 · Workstream 47
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
18% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
AmazingHiring 22 · Workstream 20
0.4 weighted points to AmazingHiring
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
AmazingHiring 52 · Workstream 56
0.3 weighted points to Workstream
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
AmazingHiring 33 · Workstream 35
0.2 weighted points to Workstream
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is AmazingHiring minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | AmazingHiring | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 40 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 20 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 27 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 50 | 47 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 61 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 33 | 35 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 39 (F) | -2 | -1.9 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | — | 7 | 0 | 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 domainSources on a separate 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 | 6 | Sources 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for AmazingHiring, across 1 distinct source domain, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- AmazingHiring last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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