§ The result
Hireology leads Fountain by 13 points.
Hireology, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 13 points above Fountain, filed under Screening: 57 against 44 under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Hireology, with 1 level: Hireology is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Fountain on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Fountain 30, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 73% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Fountain
AI-powered high-volume hiring platform that automates sourcing, applicant screening (including a voice-based AI Recruiter), interview scheduling, and onboarding for frontline workforces.
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
Fountain is filed under Screening AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Fountain | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Fountain 30 · Hireology 83
9.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Fountain 40 · Hireology 59
2.3 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Fountain 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 96% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Fountain 52 · Hireology 58
0.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Fountain 55 · Hireology 52
0.4 weighted points to Fountain
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Fountain 58 · Hireology 57
0.1 weighted points to Fountain
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -12.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.6 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 -12.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Fountain minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | Fountain | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 50 | - | - |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 83 | -53 | -9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 52 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 58 | 57 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 59 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 44 (F) | 57 (F) | -13 | -12.5 |
§ 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 | Fountain | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | — | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 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% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 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% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 14 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 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 49 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Fountain last reviewed
- June 7, 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