Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Recruiterflow
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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
hackajob leads Recruiterflow by 9 points.
Under rubric v1.0, hackajob, filed under Sourcing, finishes on 45 and Recruiterflow, filed under ATS-integrated, on 36, 9 points apart. hackajob leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Recruiterflow leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 60, Recruiterflow 33 — and at a 20% weight it carries 59% of the weighted advantage hackajob holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob6
- Recruiterflow1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation60 vs 33
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% 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, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of
Only hackajob is in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2017 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight57% of the movement so far
hackajob60Recruiterflow335.4 weighted points to hackajob
- 2
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight79% of the movement so far
hackajob58Recruiterflow442.1 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight86% of the movement so far
hackajob38Recruiterflow330.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight90% of the movement so far
hackajob20Recruiterflow180.4 weighted points to hackajob
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight93% of the movement so far
hackajob55Recruiterflow580.4 weighted points to Recruiterflow
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight97% of the movement so far
hackajob60Recruiterflow560.3 weighted points to hackajob
- 7
FRIA Support
15% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob32Recruiterflow300.3 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +9 beside that +8.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Recruiterflow, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 33 | +27 | +5.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 18 | +2 | +0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 33 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 36F | +9 | +8.7 |
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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 38 | 4 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
hackajob has 42 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 38 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
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 Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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.