§ The result
4 points separate Korn Ferry and Draup.
Korn Ferry (Assessment) edges Draup (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 42. Draup and Korn Ferry each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Korn Ferry holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 33, Korn Ferry 48 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Korn Ferry 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
Korn Ferry
Korn Ferry provides psychometric talent assessments (Korn Ferry Assess, the KF4D Four Dimensional assessment, KFALP leadership-potential assessment, and the Leadership Architect competency framework) used to evaluate candidates' personality, competencies, drivers, and cognitive ability for selection, promotion, and development decisions.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Korn Ferry 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 Korn Ferry is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Korn Ferry |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 1969 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 40% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Korn Ferry 48
2.7 weighted points to Korn Ferry
20% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Korn Ferry 58
2.0 weighted points to Korn Ferry
12% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Korn Ferry 52
0.7 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Korn Ferry 33
0.6 weighted points to Korn Ferry
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Korn Ferry 52
0.4 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Korn Ferry 52
0.3 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -3.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.7 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 -3.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Korn Ferry.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Korn Ferry | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 58 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 48 | -15 | -2.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 46 (F) | -4 | -3.9 |
§ 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 | Korn Ferry | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 10 | 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; Korn Ferry has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 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 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Korn Ferry, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Korn Ferry 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