Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
Substantial gaps
Sourcing
The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads hackajob by 12 points.
Both filed under Sourcing, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) and hackajob come out 57 and 45 under rubric v1.0, 12 points in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT). The criteria split evenly, 3 each to hackajob and Juicebox (PeopleGPT), with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds, headed by Bias Audit Transparency, settle the total. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 20, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 82% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob3
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT)3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 84
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
hackajob and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2022 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight70% of the movement so far
hackajob20Juicebox (PeopleGPT)8411.5 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight82% of the movement so far
hackajob38Juicebox (PeopleGPT)552.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob60Juicebox (PeopleGPT)521.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight95% of the movement so far
hackajob55Juicebox (PeopleGPT)500.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
FRIA Support
15% weight98% of the movement so far
hackajob32Juicebox (PeopleGPT)350.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
- 6
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob58Juicebox (PeopleGPT)560.3 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -11.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 16.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -12 beside that -11.5.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT), coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +1.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 84 | -64 | -11.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 35 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 55 | -17 | -2.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 60 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 57F | -12 | -11.5 |
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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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.