§ The result
4 points separate hackajob and Paradox.
hackajob holds a 4-point edge over Paradox under rubric v1.0, 45 to 41, across the Sourcing and Scheduling cohorts. hackajob leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Paradox leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Paradox — hackajob 20, Paradox 50, on an 18% weight — which is 100% of the weighted advantage Paradox holds across the 1 criterion on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
hackajob is filed under Candidate sourcing AI, Paradox under Scheduling AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | hackajob | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
hackajob 20 · Paradox 50
5.4 weighted points to Paradox
20% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
hackajob 60 · Paradox 40
4.0 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
hackajob 58 · Paradox 45
1.9 weighted points to hackajob
8% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
hackajob 60 · Paradox 45
1.2 weighted points to hackajob
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
hackajob 32 · Paradox 25
1.1 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
hackajob 55 · Paradox 50
0.6 weighted points to hackajob
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
hackajob 38 · Paradox 35
0.4 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 14.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +3.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 40 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 50 | -30 | -5.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 50 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 35 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 45 | +15 | +1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45 (F) | 41 (F) | +4 | +3.8 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Paradox 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: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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