§ The result
1 point separates Draup and Paradox.
Draup (Sourcing) edges Paradox (Scheduling) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Draup leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paradox leads 2, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Paradox — Draup 33, Paradox 50, on an 18% weight — which is 78% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 2 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 35% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Paradox 50
3.1 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Paradox 40
1.6 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Paradox 45
1.3 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Paradox 50
1.0 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Paradox 45
1.0 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Paradox 35
0.8 weighted points to Paradox
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 50 | -17 | -3.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 45 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 50 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 45 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 41 (F) | +1 | +1.0 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate 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 | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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