§ The result
iCIMS leads Draup on 6 of the 7 criteria.
iCIMS sits 13 points above Draup under rubric v1.0 — 55 against 42 — with iCIMS filed under ATS-integrated and Draup under Sourcing. iCIMS leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so Draup is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 iCIMS leads is Data Governance Disclosure, Draup 54 to iCIMS 56. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, iCIMS 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage iCIMS 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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, iCIMS 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 | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2000 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · iCIMS 68
6.3 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · iCIMS 58
2.0 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 81% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · iCIMS 38
1.9 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · iCIMS 42
1.7 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · iCIMS 62
0.4 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · iCIMS 56
0.3 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus iCIMS.
| Category | Weight | Draup | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 68 | -35 | -6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 38 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 42 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 62 | -5 | -0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 55 (F) | -13 | -12.6 |
§ 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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 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 | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 21 | 3 | 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; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 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 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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