§ The result
Checkr leads UKG by 10 points.
Checkr sits 10 points above UKG under rubric v1.0 — 54 against 44 — with Checkr filed under Screening and UKG under ATS-integrated. Checkr leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while UKG leads 1, including FRIA Support. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Checkr 70, UKG 48 — and at a 20% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Checkr holds across the 6 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Checkr is filed under Screening AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Checkr 70 · UKG 48
4.4 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Checkr 66 · UKG 52
1.7 weighted points to Checkr
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Checkr 50 · UKG 38
1.4 weighted points to Checkr
8% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Checkr 68 · UKG 55
1.0 weighted points to Checkr
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Checkr 35 · UKG 30
0.9 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Checkr 62 · UKG 56
0.9 weighted points to Checkr
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Checkr 32 · UKG 35
0.4 weighted points to UKG
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +9.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 10.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +10 beside that +9.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Checkr minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Checkr | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 70 | 48 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 50 | 38 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 68 | 55 | +13 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 54 (F) | 44 (F) | +10 | +9.9 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | Checkr | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 28 for Checkr, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Checkr last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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