Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Greenhouse vs isolved
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.
Concerning
ATS-integrated
isolved
isolved is a US HCM and payroll provider whose isolved Talent Acquisition applicant tracking system (formerly ApplicantPro) uses AI Candidate Matching to score each applicant's resume against the job description and sort the applicant list, alongside AI job-ad writing and WedgeHR-powered one-way video interviews.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Greenhouse leads isolved on all 7 criteria.
The ATS-integrated cohort pairing of Greenhouse and isolved comes out 67 (D) to 47 (F) under rubric v1.0, a 20-point lead for Greenhouse. Of the 7 criteria isolved wins none, and the narrowest lead Greenhouse holds is on Customer Documentation, Greenhouse 64 to isolved 56. Even Bias Audit Transparency, the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Greenhouse 86, isolved 45, 18% weight), is only 37% of the weighted advantage Greenhouse builds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Greenhouse7
- isolved0
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency86 vs 45
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Greenhouse and isolved are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Greenhouse | isolved |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 1986 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight37% of the movement so far
Greenhouse86isolved457.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight66% of the movement so far
Greenhouse78isolved505.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight75% of the movement so far
Greenhouse42isolved301.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight83% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64isolved531.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight90% of the movement so far
Greenhouse66isolved551.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Greenhouse58isolved471.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Greenhouse64isolved560.6 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +19.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.7 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 +19.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus isolved, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | isolved | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 50 | +28 | +5.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 45 | +41 | +7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 30 | +12 | +1.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 53 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 55 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 47 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 56 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 67D | 47F | +20 | +19.7 |
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 | isolved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 31 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Greenhouse has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 16 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Greenhouse and isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 53 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- isolved 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.