§ The result
2 points separate Checkr and HiringBranch.
Checkr (Screening) edges HiringBranch (Assessment) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 54 to 52. Checkr leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while HiringBranch leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to HiringBranch — Checkr 35, HiringBranch 60, on an 18% weight — which is 91% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 2 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
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, HiringBranch under Assessment 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. Only HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Checkr | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2014 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · HiringBranch 60
4.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · HiringBranch 60
2.0 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · HiringBranch 52
1.7 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · HiringBranch 40
1.2 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · HiringBranch 55
1.1 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · HiringBranch 35
0.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · HiringBranch 64
0.3 weighted points to Checkr
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +1.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 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 +1.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 60 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 60 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 64 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 52 (F) | +2 | +1.3 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | 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 domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Checkr has 28 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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