HomeCompareEntelo vs HireLogic

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Entelo vs HireLogic

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

1 point separates HireLogic and Entelo.

HireLogic (Video interview) edges Entelo (Sourcing) by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 34 to 33. Entelo takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Bias Audit Transparency among them, against 3 for HireLogic, whose share includes Article 11 Technical Documentation, and 2 are level. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Entelo 30, HireLogic 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 68% of the weighted advantage HireLogic holds across the 3 criteria it leads.

§ The record

Entelo is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HireLogic under Video interview 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. Only HireLogic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordEnteloHireLogic
Price tierMidLow
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded2011Not recorded

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 20% weight · 46% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Entelo 30 · HireLogic 42

    2.4 weighted points to HireLogic

  2. 18% weight · 63% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Entelo 20 · HireLogic 15

    0.9 weighted points to Entelo

  3. 12% weight · 79% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Entelo 35 · HireLogic 28

    0.8 weighted points to Entelo

  4. 12% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Entelo 42 · HireLogic 48

    0.7 weighted points to HireLogic

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Entelo 40 · HireLogic 45

    0.4 weighted points to HireLogic

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.3 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 -1.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Entelo minus HireLogic.

CategoryWeightEnteloHireLogicΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3042-12-2.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2015+5+0.9
FRIA Support15%2525--
Data Governance Disclosure15%4545--
Human Oversight Design12%4248-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%3528+7+0.8
Customer Documentation8%4045-5-0.4
Total100%33 (F)34 (F)-1-1.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightEnteloHireLogic
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%11—31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%22—31—
FRIA Support15%01—11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%11—50Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain41Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%98Sources on the vendor's own domain236Sources on the vendor's own domain

Entelo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 16 for Entelo, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Entelo last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HireLogic 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.