§ The result
Criteria leads Draup by 11 points.
Criteria sits 11 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 53 against 42 — with Criteria filed under Assessment and Draup under Sourcing. Criteria leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Draup leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Criteria 68, Draup 48, 20% weight), but it accounts for only 37% of the weighted advantage Criteria holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Criteria
Criteria is a pre-employment assessment platform offering scientifically validated cognitive aptitude, personality, emotional-intelligence and skills tests, plus structured and AI-assisted interview tools, used to evaluate and rank job candidates.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
§ The record
Criteria is filed under Assessment AI, Draup under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Criteria is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Criteria | Draup |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Draup 48
4.0 weighted points to Criteria
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Draup 33
2.7 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Draup 28
1.7 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Criteria 62 · Draup 54
1.2 weighted points to Criteria
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Draup 25
1.1 weighted points to Criteria
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Draup 58
0.2 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Draup 57
0.2 weighted points to Criteria
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +10.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +11 beside that +10.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus Draup.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Draup | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 48 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 33 | +15 | +2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 58 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 28 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 42 (F) | +11 | +10.6 |
§ 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 | Criteria | Draup | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 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