§ The result
2 points separate UKG and Draup.
UKG (ATS-integrated) edges Draup (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 42. Draup and UKG each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split UKG holds (headed by FRIA Support) adds up to more weighted points. FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Draup 25, UKG 35 — and at a 15% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage UKG 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Draup is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, UKG under ATS-integrated 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 | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 34% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · UKG 35
1.5 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · UKG 38
1.2 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · UKG 52
0.7 weighted points to Draup
18% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · UKG 30
0.5 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · UKG 56
0.3 weighted points to UKG
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -1.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Draup | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 48 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 30 | +3 | +0.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 56 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 38 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 44 (F) | -2 | -1.6 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Draup has 30 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 44 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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