§ The result
Greenhouse leads Hogan Assessments on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse finishes 20 points clear of Hogan Assessments under rubric v1.0 — 67 (D) against 47 (F) — across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Greenhouse leads every one of the 7 criteria, Hogan Assessments none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Customer Documentation, Greenhouse 64 to Hogan Assessments 62. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (Greenhouse 86, Hogan Assessments 44, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 38% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse holds across the 7 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Greenhouse
End-to-end applicant tracking system and structured-hiring platform, now layered with 'Greenhouse AI' features such as resume parsing, Talent Matching, and interview summarisation.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
§ The record
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Hogan Assessments under Assessment 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. Only Hogan Assessments is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Greenhouse | Hogan Assessments |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1987 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 38% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Greenhouse 86 · Hogan Assessments 44
7.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Greenhouse 78 · Hogan Assessments 50
5.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Greenhouse 58 · Hogan Assessments 40
2.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Greenhouse 64 · Hogan Assessments 52
1.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Greenhouse 66 · Hogan Assessments 52
1.7 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Greenhouse 42 · Hogan Assessments 36
0.9 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Greenhouse 64 · Hogan Assessments 62
0.2 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +19.9.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Hogan Assessments.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Hogan Assessments | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 44 | +42 | +7.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 36 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 40 | +18 | +2.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 62 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 47 (F) | +20 | +19.9 |
§ 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 | Greenhouse | Hogan Assessments | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 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