§ The result
SEEK leads ClearCo (ClearCompany) by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, SEEK, filed under Screening, finishes on 54 and ClearCo (ClearCompany), filed under ATS-integrated, on 46, 8 points apart. ClearCo (ClearCompany) takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for SEEK, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation. The advantage SEEK holds is spread out: Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (ClearCo (ClearCompany) 56, SEEK 70, 20% weight), yet it supplies only 37% of the weighted points SEEK gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
ClearCo (ClearCompany)
ClearCo (formerly ClearCompany) is a unified talent-management suite built around an applicant tracking system. Its AI Talent Match scores and ranks new applicants against a requisition's skills and job titles, and its Sourcing Agent runs AI-conducted phone screening calls and returns applicants ranked by score.
Vendor profile
SEEK
SEEK runs employment marketplaces in Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia (SEEK, Jobstreet and Jobsdb), and its seekAi employer tools label and rank applicants as 'high-fit' using a model trained on millions of past hirer shortlisting decisions, target job ads at predicted high-fit candidates, and run AI voice or text pre-screens, recommended shortlists and reference checks through a feature called Assist.
§ The record
ClearCo (ClearCompany) is filed under ATS-integrated AI, SEEK under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | ClearCo (ClearCompany) | SEEK |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AU |
| Founded | 2004 | 1997 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 56 · SEEK 70
2.8 weighted points to SEEK
18% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 28 · SEEK 40
2.2 weighted points to SEEK
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 37 · SEEK 50
1.6 weighted points to SEEK
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 57 · SEEK 60
0.4 weighted points to SEEK
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 60 · SEEK 64
0.3 weighted points to SEEK
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 30 · SEEK 32
0.3 weighted points to SEEK
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
ClearCo (ClearCompany) 63 · SEEK 62
0.1 weighted points to ClearCo (ClearCompany)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -7.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -8 beside that -7.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is ClearCo (ClearCompany) minus SEEK.
| Category | Weight | ClearCo (ClearCompany) | SEEK | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 56 | 70 | -14 | -2.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 37 | 50 | -13 | -1.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 54 (F) | -8 | -7.5 |
§ 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 | ClearCo (ClearCompany) | SEEK | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 23 | 7 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
ClearCo (ClearCompany) has 38 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 7 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 ClearCo (ClearCompany) and SEEK sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 68 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 38 for ClearCo (ClearCompany), across 3 distinct source domains, and 30 for SEEK, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- ClearCo (ClearCompany) last reviewed
- September 25, 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.
§ Where next