§ The result
Crosschq leads softgarden by 5 points.
Crosschq scores 47 and softgarden 42 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Screening and ATS-integrated cohorts. Crosschq leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while softgarden leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Crosschq 38, softgarden 22) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 49% of the weighted advantage Crosschq holds across the 5 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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
§ The record
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, softgarden 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 | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2018 | 2001 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 45% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · softgarden 22
2.9 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · softgarden 42
1.6 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · softgarden 54
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · softgarden 58
0.5 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · softgarden 44
0.5 weighted points to softgarden
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · softgarden 58
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +5.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus softgarden.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 42 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 22 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 30 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 42 (F) | +5 | +5.4 |
§ 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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 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 | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources 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 | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Crosschq has 43 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 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 79 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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