§ The result
4 points separate Draup and impress.ai.
Draup (Sourcing) edges impress.ai (Screening) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 42 to 38. Draup and impress.ai each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Draup holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 48, impress.ai 35 — and at a 20% weight it carries 49% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 3 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
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | High |
| Headquarters | US | SG |
| Founded | 2017 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 43% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · impress.ai 35
2.6 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · impress.ai 22
2.0 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · impress.ai 52
0.7 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · impress.ai 32
0.5 weighted points to impress.ai
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · impress.ai 55
0.1 weighted points to impress.ai
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · impress.ai 58
0.1 weighted points to impress.ai
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.0 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 +4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | Draup | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 35 | +13 | +2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 22 | +11 | +2.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 55 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 32 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 38 (F) | +4 | +4.6 |
§ 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 | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 3 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 18 | 7 | 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; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 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 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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