§ The result
Greenhouse leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Greenhouse (ATS-integrated) and Qureos (Screening) are 34 points apart under rubric v1.0, 67 (D) for Greenhouse against 33 (F) for Qureos. Qureos leads none of the 7 criteria, and Greenhouse is ahead on 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them. The advantage Greenhouse holds is spread out: Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Greenhouse 86, Qureos 12, 18% weight), yet it supplies only 39% of the weighted points Greenhouse gains across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Greenhouse is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Sourcing.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Greenhouse | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Greenhouse 86 · Qureos 12
13.3 weighted points to Greenhouse
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Greenhouse 78 · Qureos 28
10.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Greenhouse 64 · Qureos 44
3.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Greenhouse 58 · Qureos 35
2.8 weighted points to Greenhouse
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Greenhouse 42 · Qureos 25
2.5 weighted points to Greenhouse
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Greenhouse 66 · Qureos 54
1.4 weighted points to Greenhouse
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Greenhouse 64 · Qureos 52
1.0 weighted points to Greenhouse
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +34.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 34.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +34 beside that +34.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Greenhouse minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Greenhouse | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 78 | 28 | +50 | +10.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 86 | 12 | +74 | +13.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 42 | 25 | +17 | +2.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 64 | 44 | +20 | +3.0 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 66 | 54 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 58 | 35 | +23 | +2.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 52 | +12 | +1.0 |
| Total | 100% | 67 (D) | 33 (F) | +34 | +34.0 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 16 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 28 | 7 | 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; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 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 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 17 for Greenhouse, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Greenhouse last reviewed
- June 7, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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