HomeCompareDice vs Oleeo

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Dice vs Oleeo

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

4 points separate Oleeo and Dice.

Oleeo (ATS-integrated) edges Dice (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 40 to 36. The 7 criteria split 3 to 1 in favour of Oleeo, with 3 level: Oleeo is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Dice on Post-Market Monitoring. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Dice 25, Oleeo 40) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage Oleeo holds across the 3 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Dice is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Oleeo under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.

RecordDiceOleeo
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersUSGB
Founded19901995

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 51% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Dice 25 · Oleeo 40

    2.7 weighted points to Oleeo

  2. 20% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Dice 32 · Oleeo 40

    1.6 weighted points to Oleeo

  3. 12% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Dice 35 · Oleeo 30

    0.6 weighted points to Dice

  4. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Dice 50 · Oleeo 55

    0.4 weighted points to Oleeo

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to -4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -4 beside that -4.1.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Dice minus Oleeo.

CategoryWeightDiceOleeoΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3240-8-1.6
Bias Audit Transparency18%2540-15-2.7
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4545--
Human Oversight Design12%5555--
Post-Market Monitoring12%3530+5+0.6
Customer Documentation8%5055-5-0.4
Total100%36 (F)40 (F)-4-4.1

§ 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.

CriterionWeightDiceOleeo
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31—11Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain01—
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%51Sources on the vendor's own domain20Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%257Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain106Sources on the vendor's own domain

Dice has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Dice sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 32 for Dice, across 4 distinct source domains, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Dice last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Oleeo 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.