§ The result
4 points separate Fetcher and Qureos.
Fetcher holds a 4-point edge over Qureos under rubric v1.0, 37 to 33, across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. Qureos takes 2 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 3 for Fetcher, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency, and 2 are level. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fetcher 28, Qureos 12 — and at an 18% weight it carries 60% of the weighted advantage Fetcher holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fetcher
AI-powered candidate sourcing and outbound recruiting platform that automates passive and active talent sourcing, personalized email outreach, and inbound applicant screening for corporate recruiting teams.
Vendor profile
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Fetcher is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Fetcher | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 55% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fetcher 28 · Qureos 12
2.9 weighted points to Fetcher
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fetcher 55 · Qureos 44
1.6 weighted points to Fetcher
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fetcher 52 · Qureos 54
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fetcher 55 · Qureos 52
0.2 weighted points to Fetcher
20% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Fetcher 27 · Qureos 28
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +4.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fetcher minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Fetcher | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 27 | 28 | -1 | -0.2 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 28 | 12 | +16 | +2.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 25 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 44 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 37 (F) | 33 (F) | +4 | +4.3 |
§ 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 | Fetcher | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 1 | 1 | — | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Fetcher has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 54 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for Fetcher, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fetcher last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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