§ The result
2 points separate Crosschq and hackajob.
Crosschq (Screening) edges hackajob (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 45. hackajob takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Article 11 Technical Documentation among them, against 4 for Crosschq, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Crosschq 38, hackajob 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Crosschq holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Crosschq
Crosschq is a hiring-intelligence platform that combines automated 360 reference checks, an AI Interview Agent that conducts and scores voice/video screening interviews, AI resume matching and ranking, candidate-fraud and identity checks, Traitify personality and cognitive assessments, and quality-of-hire analytics.
Vendor profile
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, hackajob under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only Crosschq is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2018 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 48% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · hackajob 20
3.2 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · hackajob 60
2.0 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · hackajob 55
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · hackajob 32
0.3 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · hackajob 38
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · hackajob 60
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 20 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 32 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 60 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 45 (F) | +2 | +2.2 |
§ 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 | Crosschq | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 85 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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