HomeCompareFountain vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Fountain vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

Fountain and UKG tie at 44.

Fountain (Screening) and UKG (ATS-integrated) tie at 44 under rubric v1.0, arriving there from different criteria. Fountain leads 3 of the 7 criteria and UKG 3, with 1 level, yet the two totals land on the same number. UKG takes the heaviest weighted swing, FRIA Support at 15% (Fountain 30, UKG 35), which is 66% of the weighted advantage UKG holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, Fountain 58 to UKG 52.

§ The record

Fountain is filed under Screening AI, UKG 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.

RecordFountainUKG
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersUSUS
Founded20142020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 15% weight · 30% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Fountain 30 · UKG 35

    0.8 weighted points to UKG

  2. 12% weight · 59% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Fountain 58 · UKG 52

    0.7 weighted points to Fountain

  3. 20% weight · 75% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Fountain 50 · UKG 48

    0.4 weighted points to Fountain

  4. 12% weight · 84% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    Fountain 40 · UKG 38

    0.2 weighted points to Fountain

  5. 8% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Fountain 52 · UKG 55

    0.2 weighted points to UKG

  6. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Fountain 55 · UKG 56

    0.1 weighted points to UKG

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +0.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 2.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads 0 beside that +0.2.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Fountain minus UKG.

CategoryWeightFountainUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5048+2+0.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%3030--
FRIA Support15%3035-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5556-1-0.1
Human Oversight Design12%5852+6+0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%4038+2+0.2
Customer Documentation8%5255-3-0.2
Total100%44 (F)44 (F)-+0.2

§ 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.

CriterionWeightFountainUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%2102
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%30Sources on the vendor's own domain02
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%146Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Fountain has 20 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 34 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 20 for Fountain, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
Fountain last reviewed
June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
UKG last reviewed
June 7, 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.