HomeCompareAvature vs Jobma

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Avature vs Jobma

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

1 point separates Jobma and Avature.

Jobma (Video interview) edges Avature (ATS-integrated) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 49 to 48. The 7 criteria split 3 to 1 in favour of Jobma, with 3 level: Jobma is ahead on Post-Market Monitoring and Avature on Data Governance Disclosure. One criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, is both the widest raw gap (Avature 40, Jobma 44) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 12% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Jobma holds across the 3 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Avature is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Jobma under Video interview AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

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

RecordAvatureJobma
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20042012

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 12% weight · 35% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Avature 40 · Jobma 44

    0.5 weighted points to Jobma

  2. 15% weight · 67% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Avature 32 · Jobma 35

    0.4 weighted points to Jobma

  3. 15% weight · 88% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Avature 58 · Jobma 56

    0.3 weighted points to Avature

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

    Customer Documentation

    Avature 60 · Jobma 62

    0.2 weighted points to Jobma

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 1.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Avature minus Jobma.

CategoryWeightAvatureJobmaΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5555--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4040--
FRIA Support15%3235-3-0.4
Data Governance Disclosure15%5856+2+0.3
Human Oversight Design12%6060--
Post-Market Monitoring12%4044-4-0.5
Customer Documentation8%6062-2-0.2
Total100%48 (F)49 (F)-1-0.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightAvatureJobma
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11—
FRIA Support15%21—11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%51Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain40Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%286Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain174Sources on the vendor's own domain

Avature has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Jobma has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 17 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Avature sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Avature, across 3 distinct source domains, and 21 for Jobma, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Avature last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Jobma last reviewed
July 17, 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.