HomeCompareAvature vs Jobylon

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Avature vs Jobylon

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Avature and Jobylon tie at 48.

Avature and Jobylon tie at 48 under rubric v1.0 inside the ATS-integrated cohort, arriving there from different criteria. Avature leads 1 of the 7 criteria and Jobylon 2, with 4 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Avature 40, Jobylon 28) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 100% of the weighted advantage Avature holds across the 1 criterion it leads.

§ The record

Avature and Jobylon are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Sourcing and Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.

RecordAvatureJobylon
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSSE
Founded20042011

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Avature 40 · Jobylon 28

    2.2 weighted points to Avature

  2. 15% weight · 82% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Avature 32 · Jobylon 36

    0.6 weighted points to Jobylon

  3. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Avature 40 · Jobylon 45

    0.6 weighted points to Jobylon

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 3 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +1.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Avature minus Jobylon.

CategoryWeightAvatureJobylonΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5555--
Bias Audit Transparency18%4028+12+2.2
FRIA Support15%3236-4-0.6
Data Governance Disclosure15%5858--
Human Oversight Design12%6060--
Post-Market Monitoring12%4045-5-0.6
Customer Documentation8%6060--
Total100%48 (F)48 (F)-+1.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightAvatureJobylon
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 domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21—31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%51Sources on the vendor's own domain50Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%51Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%286Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain285Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Avature has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Jobylon has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 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 67 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 34 for Avature, across 3 distinct source domains, and 33 for Jobylon, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Avature last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Jobylon 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.