HomeCompareCheckr vs SEEK

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Checkr vs SEEK

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Checkr and SEEK tie at 54.

Checkr and SEEK, both in the Screening cohort, tie at 54 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Checkr leads 3 of the 7 criteria and SEEK 1, with 3 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 35, SEEK 40 — and at an 18% weight it carries 100% of the weighted advantage SEEK holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.

§ The record

Checkr and SEEK are both filed under Screening 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.

RecordCheckrSEEK
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSAU
Founded20141997

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 45% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Checkr 35 · SEEK 40

    0.9 weighted points to SEEK

  2. 12% weight · 69% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Checkr 66 · SEEK 62

    0.5 weighted points to Checkr

  3. 8% weight · 85% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Checkr 68 · SEEK 64

    0.3 weighted points to Checkr

  4. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Checkr 62 · SEEK 60

    0.3 weighted points to Checkr

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Checkr minus SEEK.

CategoryWeightCheckrSEEKΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%7070--
Bias Audit Transparency18%3540-5-0.9
FRIA Support15%3232--
Data Governance Disclosure15%6260+2+0.3
Human Oversight Design12%6662+4+0.5
Post-Market Monitoring12%5050--
Customer Documentation8%6864+4+0.3
Total100%54 (F)54 (F)-+0.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCheckrSEEK
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%32Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%40Sources on the vendor's own domain41Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%50Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%31Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain
All criteria100%246Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain237Audit 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; SEEK has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for SEEK sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 30 for SEEK, across 3 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Checkr last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
SEEK 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.