Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Gem vs Workable
Gem
Gem is an AI-first recruiting platform combining a talent CRM, AI sourcing and outreach automation, candidate engagement, and a newer applicant tracking system with AI-powered application review and ranking.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Gem leads Workable by 7 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Gem, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 55 and Workable, filed under ATS-integrated, on 48, 7 points apart. The 7 criteria split 5 to 2 in favour of Gem: Gem is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Workable on Data Governance Disclosure. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Gem 66, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 58% of the weighted advantage Gem holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Gem5
- Workable2
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency66 vs 42
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Gem is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Gem | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | High | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2017 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight56% of the movement so far
Gem66Workable424.3 weighted points to Gem
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight75% of the movement so far
Gem35Workable251.5 weighted points to Gem
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight83% of the movement so far
Gem58Workable550.6 weighted points to Gem
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight90% of the movement so far
Gem47Workable420.6 weighted points to Gem
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
Gem62Workable560.5 weighted points to Gem
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight98% of the movement so far
Gem57Workable580.1 weighted points to Workable
- 7
Human Oversight Design
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Gem61Workable620.1 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +7.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +7.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Gem minus Workable, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Gem | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 66 | 42 | +24 | +4.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 61 | 62 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 42 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 56 | +6 | +0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 55F | 48F | +7 | +7.2 |
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 | Gem | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 2 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 12 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Gem has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Gem and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 38 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 21 for Gem, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Gem last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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.