Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs isolved
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
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
isolved takes the total, hackajob takes more of the criteria.
isolved (ATS-integrated) edges hackajob (Sourcing) by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 47 to 45. hackajob leads more of the criteria than isolved — 4 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which isolved leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to isolved. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (hackajob 20, isolved 45) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 81% of the weighted advantage isolved holds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob4
- isolved2
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 45
- 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, isolved under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | isolved |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 1986 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight50% of the movement so far
hackajob20isolved454.5 weighted points to isolved
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight73% of the movement so far
hackajob60isolved502.0 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight85% of the movement so far
hackajob38isolved471.1 weighted points to isolved
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight93% of the movement so far
hackajob58isolved530.8 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
hackajob60isolved560.3 weighted points to hackajob
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob32isolved300.3 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -2.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus isolved, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | isolved | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 45 | -25 | -4.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 53 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 55 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 47 | -9 | -1.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 47F | -2 | -2.2 |
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 | isolved | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 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% | 6 | 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% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | 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; isolved has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for isolved sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 78 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 36 for isolved, across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 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.