Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs HiPeople
hackajob
Archer, hackajob's AI sourcing agent, is calibrated by a recruiter on a hiring brief, then finds, engages and qualifies passive candidates from a 1.5m-member pool and 800m+ indexed profiles and invites those who meet the bar to apply through the employer's existing ATS.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
Concerning
Assessment
The result
HiPeople leads hackajob on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 16 points clear of hackajob under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 45 (F) — across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. HiPeople leads 6 of the 7 criteria and the remaining criterion is level, so hackajob is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 6 HiPeople leads is Article 11 Technical Documentation, hackajob 60 to HiPeople 62. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (hackajob 20, HiPeople 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 71% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob0
- HiPeople6
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 84
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
Keep this comparison
Both scores and all 7 criteria, side by side, in your inbox.
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, HiPeople under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only HiPeople is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | HiPeople |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2019 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight71% of the movement so far
hackajob20HiPeople8411.5 weighted points to HiPeople
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight87% of the movement so far
hackajob38HiPeople602.6 weighted points to HiPeople
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob55HiPeople620.8 weighted points to HiPeople
- 4
Customer Documentation
8% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob60HiPeople660.5 weighted points to HiPeople
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob32HiPeople350.4 weighted points to HiPeople
- 6
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60HiPeople620.4 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -16.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -16.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus HiPeople, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | HiPeople | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 84 | -64 | -11.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 60 | -22 | -2.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 66 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 61D | -16 | -16.3 |
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 | hackajob | HiPeople | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 73 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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.