§ The result
3 points separate Rippling and Criteria.
Rippling (ATS-integrated) edges Criteria (Assessment) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 53. Rippling leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including FRIA Support, while Criteria leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Criteria 32, Rippling 45 — and at a 15% weight it carries 42% of the weighted advantage Rippling 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Criteria is filed under Assessment AI, Rippling under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Criteria is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Criteria | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2006 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 34% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Criteria 32 · Rippling 45
1.9 weighted points to Rippling
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Criteria 48 · Rippling 42
1.1 weighted points to Criteria
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Criteria 68 · Rippling 73
1.0 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Criteria 42 · Rippling 47
0.6 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Criteria 56 · Rippling 60
0.5 weighted points to Rippling
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Criteria 60 · Rippling 64
0.3 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Criteria 62 · Rippling 64
0.3 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -3.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -3.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Criteria minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Criteria | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 68 | 73 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 48 | 42 | +6 | +1.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 45 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 62 | 64 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 56 | 60 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 42 | 47 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 64 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 53 (F) | 56 (F) | -3 | -3.6 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Criteria has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 31 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 18 for Criteria, across 1 distinct source domain, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Criteria last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling last reviewed
- July 17, 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