§ The result
Hireology leads Equalture by 13 points.
Hireology, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 13 points above Equalture, filed under Assessment: 57 against 44 under rubric v1.0. Equalture takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Data Governance Disclosure among them, against 5 for Hireology, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Equalture 40, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Equalture
Equalture is a game-based pre-employment assessment platform whose short browser games measure candidates' cognitive abilities and behavioural tendencies and convert them into a Fit Score ranked against an employer-specific "Success Profile" derived from that employer's own top performers.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
Equalture is filed under Assessment AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Equalture is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Equalture | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | NL | US |
| Founded | 2018 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 58% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Equalture 40 · Hireology 83
7.7 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Equalture 38 · Hireology 59
2.5 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Equalture 45 · Hireology 50
1.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Equalture 50 · Hireology 57
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Equalture 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Equalture 55 · Hireology 52
0.4 weighted points to Equalture
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Equalture 60 · Hireology 58
0.2 weighted points to Equalture
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -12.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -12.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Equalture minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Equalture | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 40 | 83 | -43 | -7.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 59 | -21 | -2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 57 (F) | -13 | -12.2 |
§ 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 | Equalture | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Equalture has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 55 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Equalture, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Equalture last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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