HomeCompareCovey vs hireEZ

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Covey vs hireEZ

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Covey takes the total, hireEZ takes more of the criteria.

Covey scores 47 and hireEZ 42 under rubric v1.0 — a 5-point gap inside the Sourcing cohort. hireEZ leads more of the criteria than Covey — 3 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Covey leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Covey. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Covey 72, hireEZ 30 — and at an 18% weight it carries 95% of the weighted advantage Covey holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Covey and hireEZ are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.

RecordCoveyhireEZ
Price tierMidMid
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20182015

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Covey 72 · hireEZ 30

    7.6 weighted points to Covey

  2. 15% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Covey 52 · hireEZ 60

    1.2 weighted points to hireEZ

  3. 12% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Covey 30 · hireEZ 38

    1.0 weighted points to hireEZ

  4. 12% weight · 96% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Covey 52 · hireEZ 58

    0.7 weighted points to hireEZ

  5. 20% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Covey 40 · hireEZ 38

    0.4 weighted points to Covey

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +5.1 — 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 +5 beside that +5.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Covey minus hireEZ.

CategoryWeightCoveyhireEZΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%4038+2+0.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%7230+42+7.6
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5260-8-1.2
Human Oversight Design12%5258-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%3038-8-1.0
Customer Documentation8%5858--
Total100%47 (F)42 (F)+5+5.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightCoveyhireEZ
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%20Audit reportSources on a separate domain11
FRIA Support15%0101
Data Governance Disclosure15%0120Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%11Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%0111Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%20Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%65Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain95Sources on the vendor's own domain

Covey has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; hireEZ has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Covey sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 25 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 11 for Covey, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for hireEZ, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Covey last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
hireEZ 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.