Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Draup vs Tengai
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.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Tengai
Tengai runs structured screening interviews through a browser-based AI avatar and combines candidates' yes/no qualification answers, a Five-Factor-based personality score and recruiter ratings of open answers into an automatically ranked shortlist.
Substantial gaps
Screening
The result
Draup and Tengai tie at 42.
Draup, filed under Sourcing, and Tengai, filed under Screening, tie at 42 under rubric v1.0 by different routes through the criteria. Draup leads 3 of the 7 criteria and Tengai 2, with 2 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. Draup takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Draup 48, Tengai 45), which is 44% of the weighted advantage Draup holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Post-Market Monitoring, Draup 28 to Tengai 33.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Draup3
- Tengai2
- Level2
- Widest raw gap
- Post-Market Monitoring28 vs 33
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Tengai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only Tengai is in scope of
| Record | Draup | Tengai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | SE |
| Founded | 2017 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight25% of the movement so far
Draup48Tengai450.6 weighted points to Draup
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight50% of the movement so far
Draup54Tengai500.6 weighted points to Draup
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight75% of the movement so far
Draup28Tengai330.6 weighted points to Tengai
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight93% of the movement so far
Draup25Tengai280.4 weighted points to Tengai
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Draup57Tengai550.2 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +0.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus Tengai, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Draup | Tengai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 45 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 33 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 28 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 50 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 33 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42F | 42F | - | +0.3 |
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 | Tengai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 37 | 5 | Sources 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; Tengai has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 37 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and Tengai sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 72 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 42 for Tengai, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Tengai 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.