§ The result
HiringBranch leads Draup by 10 points.
HiringBranch sits 10 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 52 against 42 — with HiringBranch filed under Assessment and Draup under Sourcing. HiringBranch leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Draup leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, HiringBranch 60 — and at an 18% weight it carries 45% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 6 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
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HiringBranch under Assessment 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. Only HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2017 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · HiringBranch 60
4.9 weighted points to HiringBranch
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · HiringBranch 60
2.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 75% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · HiringBranch 35
1.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · HiringBranch 40
1.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · HiringBranch 52
0.7 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · HiringBranch 64
0.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · HiringBranch 55
0.1 weighted points to HiringBranch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -10.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -10.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | Draup | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 60 | -12 | -2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 60 | -27 | -4.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 64 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 52 (F) | -10 | -10.2 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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