§ The result
Crosschq leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Both filed under Screening, Crosschq and Qureos come out 47 and 33 under rubric v1.0, 14 points in favour of Crosschq. Crosschq leads every one of the 7 criteria, Qureos none of them, and the closest of the 7 is FRIA Support, Crosschq 30 to Qureos 25. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Crosschq 38, Qureos 12, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 33% of the weighted advantage Crosschq holds across the 7 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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Crosschq and Qureos are both filed under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Video interview.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Crosschq | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · Qureos 12
4.7 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · Qureos 28
4.4 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · Qureos 44
2.1 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · Qureos 54
1.0 weighted points to Crosschq
8% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · Qureos 52
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · Qureos 25
0.8 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · Qureos 35
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +14.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +14 beside that +14.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 28 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 12 | +26 | +4.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 33 (F) | +14 | +14.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 7 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 78 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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