§ The result
Draup leads Qureos by 9 points.
Draup scores 42 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0, a 9-point gap across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Draup leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Qureos leads 1, including Post-Market Monitoring, and 1 is level. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap (Draup 33, Qureos 12) but not the heaviest weighted swing, which is Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Draup 48, Qureos 28), 39% of the weighted advantage Draup builds across the 5 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Qureos 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 Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Draup | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 36% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · Qureos 28
4.0 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · Qureos 12
3.8 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · Qureos 44
1.5 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · Qureos 35
0.8 weighted points to Qureos
12% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · Qureos 54
0.5 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · Qureos 52
0.4 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +9.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +9.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 28 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 12 | +21 | +3.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 44 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 35 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 33 (F) | +9 | +9.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 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 65 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos last reviewed
- September 25, 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