§ The result
Hireology leads Crosschq by 10 points.
Hireology, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 10 points above Crosschq, filed under Screening: 57 against 47 under rubric v1.0. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to Crosschq and Hireology, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Hireology holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Crosschq 38, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated 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 | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Hireology 83
8.1 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Hireology 59
2.3 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Hireology 52
0.9 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Hireology 57
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Hireology 58
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 83 | -45 | -8.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 59 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 57 (F) | -10 | -9.3 |
§ 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 | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Crosschq and Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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