§ The result
2 points separate Workable and Brainner.
Workable holds a 2-point edge over Brainner under rubric v1.0, 48 to 46, across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Brainner and Workable, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Workable holds, headed by Human Oversight Design, settle the total. Human Oversight Design is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Brainner 50, Workable 62 — and at a 12% weight it carries 52% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Brainner
Brainner is an AI screening layer for applicant tracking systems that scores and ranks applicants against recruiter-weighted criteria with per-criterion justifications, and flags suspected fake applicants using third-party identity and fraud data.
Vendor profile
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
Brainner is filed under Screening AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Brainner | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2023 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
12% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Brainner 50 · Workable 62
1.4 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 54% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Brainner 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to Brainner
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Brainner 53 · Workable 58
0.8 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Brainner 52 · Workable 55
0.6 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Brainner 45 · Workable 42
0.4 weighted points to Brainner
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Brainner 58 · Workable 56
0.2 weighted points to Brainner
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.1 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 -1.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Brainner minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | Brainner | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 42 | 42 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 53 | 58 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 62 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 45 | 42 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 48 (F) | -2 | -1.5 |
§ 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 | Brainner | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 33 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Brainner has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 33 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Brainner and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 37 for Brainner, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Brainner last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable last reviewed
- June 7, 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