Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs iCIMS
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
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
iCIMS leads hackajob by 10 points.
iCIMS, filed under ATS-integrated, comes out 10 points above hackajob, filed under Sourcing: 55 against 45 under rubric v1.0. iCIMS leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while hackajob leads 2, including Article 11 Technical Documentation. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, iCIMS 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob2
- iCIMS5
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 68
- 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, iCIMS under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2000 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight77% of the movement so far
hackajob20iCIMS688.6 weighted points to iCIMS
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight85% of the movement so far
hackajob32iCIMS380.9 weighted points to iCIMS
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight89% of the movement so far
hackajob38iCIMS420.5 weighted points to iCIMS
- 4
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight93% of the movement so far
hackajob60iCIMS580.4 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight96% of the movement so far
hackajob55iCIMS580.4 weighted points to iCIMS
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
hackajob58iCIMS560.3 weighted points to hackajob
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60iCIMS620.2 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -9.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 11.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -10 beside that -9.8.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus iCIMS, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 68 | -48 | -8.6 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 38 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 55F | -10 | -9.8 |
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 | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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.