HomeCompareBullhorn vs HiredScore

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Bullhorn vs HiredScore

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

2 points separate Bullhorn and HiredScore.

Bullhorn (ATS-integrated) edges HiredScore (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 54 to 52. Bullhorn leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while HiredScore leads 1, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 3 are level. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Bullhorn 38, HiredScore 30 — and at a 15% weight it carries 48% of the weighted advantage Bullhorn holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Bullhorn is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HiredScore under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordBullhornHiredScore
Price tierHighEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded19992012

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 15% weight · 39% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Bullhorn 38 · HiredScore 30

    1.2 weighted points to Bullhorn

  2. 15% weight · 63% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Bullhorn 60 · HiredScore 55

    0.8 weighted points to Bullhorn

  3. 20% weight · 83% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Bullhorn 62 · HiredScore 65

    0.6 weighted points to HiredScore

  4. 18% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Bullhorn 58 · HiredScore 55

    0.5 weighted points to Bullhorn

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.1 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 +1.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Bullhorn minus HiredScore.

CategoryWeightBullhornHiredScoreΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6265-3-0.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%5855+3+0.5
FRIA Support15%3830+8+1.2
Data Governance Disclosure15%6055+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%6060--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3535--
Customer Documentation8%6060--
Total100%54 (F)52 (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.

CriterionWeightBullhornHiredScore
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on a separate domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain10Audit reportSources on a separate domain
FRIA Support15%1101
Data Governance Disclosure15%30Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
Human Oversight Design12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain10Sources on a separate domain
All criteria100%156Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain72Audit reportSources on a separate domain

Bullhorn has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; HiredScore has 9 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 7 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiredScore sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Bullhorn, across 2 distinct source domains, and 9 for HiredScore, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Bullhorn last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HiredScore last reviewed
May 21, 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.