§ The result
2 points separate Draup and ZipRecruiter.
Draup holds a 2-point edge over ZipRecruiter under rubric v1.0, 42 to 40, with both scored in the Sourcing cohort. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Draup: Draup is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and ZipRecruiter on Post-Market Monitoring. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: Post-Market Monitoring (Draup 28, ZipRecruiter 40) and Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (Draup 33, ZipRecruiter 24), the second being 39% of the weighted advantage Draup holds across the 5 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
ZipRecruiter
ZipRecruiter is an online employment marketplace whose AI matching engine sends employers' job postings out, alerts matched job seekers and invites them to apply, and labels and ranks applicants (for example as 'Great Match') in the employer's candidate dashboard.
§ The record
Draup and ZipRecruiter are both filed under Candidate sourcing 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 | ZipRecruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 28% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Draup 33 · ZipRecruiter 24
1.6 weighted points to Draup
20% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Draup 48 · ZipRecruiter 40
1.6 weighted points to Draup
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Draup 28 · ZipRecruiter 40
1.4 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Draup 58 · ZipRecruiter 55
0.4 weighted points to Draup
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Draup 25 · ZipRecruiter 27
0.3 weighted points to ZipRecruiter
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Draup 54 · ZipRecruiter 52
0.3 weighted points to Draup
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Draup 57 · ZipRecruiter 54
0.2 weighted points to Draup
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +2.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.9 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 +2.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Draup minus ZipRecruiter.
| Category | Weight | Draup | ZipRecruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 48 | 40 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 33 | 24 | +9 | +1.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 27 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 54 | 52 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 40 | -12 | -1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 57 | 54 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 42 (F) | 40 (F) | +2 | +2.4 |
§ 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 | ZipRecruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 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 | 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; ZipRecruiter has 33 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Draup and ZipRecruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 30 for Draup, across 2 distinct source domains, and 33 for ZipRecruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Draup last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- ZipRecruiter 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