§ The result
Hireology takes the total, Checkr takes more of the criteria.
Hireology holds a 3-point edge over Checkr under rubric v1.0, 57 to 54, across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Checkr leads more of the criteria, 4 against 3 for Hireology, yet Hireology takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 35, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 85% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Checkr
Checkr is an FCRA-regulated background screening platform that uses machine learning to parse, classify and standardize criminal, employment, education and motor-vehicle records, and to route them through customer-configured adjudication rulesets that flag candidates as eligible, review or escalated for employment decisions.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Checkr | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · Hireology 83
8.6 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · Hireology 50
4.0 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · Hireology 52
1.5 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · Hireology 57
1.1 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · Hireology 59
1.1 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · Hireology 58
0.8 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · Hireology 35
0.4 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 50 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 83 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 57 | +9 | +1.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 59 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 58 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 57 (F) | -3 | -2.8 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Checkr | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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.
§ Where next