§ The result
3 points separate hackajob and Draup.
hackajob holds a 3-point edge over Draup under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, with both scored in the Sourcing cohort. hackajob leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Draup leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation, at 20%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to hackajob (Draup 48, hackajob 60), 44% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Bias Audit Transparency, Draup 33 to hackajob 20.
Vendor profile
Draup
Draup is an AI-powered talent- and sales-intelligence platform that aggregates over a billion public professional profiles into skills, roles and labour-market analytics, and surfaces ranked candidate shortlists for enterprise workforce planning and recruiting.
Vendor profile
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
§ The record
Draup and hackajob are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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.
| Record | Draup | hackajob |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 29% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · hackajob 60
2.4 weighted points to hackajob
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · hackajob 20
2.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · hackajob 38
1.2 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · hackajob 32
1.1 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · hackajob 58
0.6 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · hackajob 55
0.4 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · hackajob 60
0.2 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -2.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.2 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 -2.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus hackajob.
| Category | Weight | Draup | hackajob | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 20 | +13 | +2.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 32 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 58 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 45 (F) | -3 | -2.8 |
§ 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 | Draup | hackajob | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup 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: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- hackajob 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