§ The result
3 points separate Crosschq and UKG.
Crosschq (Screening) edges UKG (ATS-integrated) by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 44. Crosschq leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 1, including FRIA Support. Human Oversight Design is the widest raw gap (Crosschq 62, UKG 52) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Crosschq 38, UKG 30), 35% of the weighted advantage Crosschq builds across the 6 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Crosschq is filed under Screening AI, UKG 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Crosschq 38 · UKG 30
1.4 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 54% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Crosschq 62 · UKG 52
1.2 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Crosschq 30 · UKG 35
0.8 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Crosschq 62 · UKG 55
0.6 weighted points to Crosschq
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Crosschq 50 · UKG 48
0.4 weighted points to Crosschq
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Crosschq 58 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to Crosschq
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Crosschq 40 · UKG 38
0.2 weighted points to Crosschq
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.9 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 +3.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Crosschq minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Crosschq | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 38 | 30 | +8 | +1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 44 (F) | +3 | +3.4 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 7 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 57 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 43 for Crosschq, across 3 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Crosschq last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG last reviewed
- June 7, 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