§ The result
Hireology leads Draup by 15 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Hireology (ATS-integrated) opens a 15-point lead on Draup (Sourcing), 57 to 42. Draup takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 5 for Hireology, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 61% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Hireology 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.
| Record | Draup | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Hireology 83
9.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Hireology 59
3.7 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · Hireology 35
1.5 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Hireology 50
0.4 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Hireology 52
0.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Hireology 57
0.1 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Hireology 58
0.1 weighted points to Hireology
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 15.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -15 beside that -14.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 83 | -50 | -9.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 59 | -31 | -3.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 57 (F) | -15 | -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 | Draup | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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