§ The result
Bullhorn leads Draup on all 7 criteria.
Bullhorn sits 12 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 42 — with Bullhorn filed under ATS-integrated and Draup under Sourcing. Bullhorn leads every one of the 7 criteria, Draup none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, Bullhorn 60 to Draup 58. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Bullhorn 58, Draup 33, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Bullhorn holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Bullhorn
Bullhorn is a cloud-based applicant tracking system and CRM for staffing and recruiting agencies, with AI features (Bullhorn Copilot/Amplify, automation, and Textkernel-powered search and match) that source, screen, and rank candidates against jobs.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Bullhorn is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing 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.
| Record | Bullhorn | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 1999 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Bullhorn 58 · Draup 33
4.5 weighted points to Bullhorn
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Bullhorn 62 · Draup 48
2.8 weighted points to Bullhorn
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Bullhorn 38 · Draup 25
1.9 weighted points to Bullhorn
15% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Bullhorn 60 · Draup 54
0.9 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Bullhorn 35 · Draup 28
0.8 weighted points to Bullhorn
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Bullhorn 60 · Draup 58
0.2 weighted points to Bullhorn
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Bullhorn 60 · Draup 57
0.2 weighted points to Bullhorn
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +12 beside that +11.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Bullhorn minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Bullhorn | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 48 | +14 | +2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 58 | 33 | +25 | +4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 38 | 25 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 60 | 54 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 42 (F) | +12 | +11.5 |
§ 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 | Bullhorn | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 15 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Bullhorn has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Bullhorn, across 2 distinct source domains, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Bullhorn last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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