Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs softgarden
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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
3 points separate hackajob and softgarden.
hackajob holds a 3-point edge over softgarden under rubric v1.0, 45 to 42, across the Sourcing and ATS-integrated cohorts. The 7 criteria split 4 to 3 in favour of hackajob: hackajob is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and softgarden on Post-Market Monitoring. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — hackajob 60, softgarden 42 — and at a 20% weight it carries 77% of the weighted advantage hackajob holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob4
- softgarden3
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation60 vs 42
- 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, softgarden under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | DE |
| Founded | 2014 | 2001 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight59% of the movement so far
hackajob60softgarden423.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 2
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight71% of the movement so far
hackajob38softgarden440.7 weighted points to softgarden
- 3
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight81% of the movement so far
hackajob58softgarden540.6 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight87% of the movement so far
hackajob20softgarden220.4 weighted points to softgarden
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight92% of the movement so far
hackajob55softgarden580.4 weighted points to softgarden
- 6
FRIA Support
15% weight97% of the movement so far
hackajob32softgarden300.3 weighted points to hackajob
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60softgarden580.2 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +3.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +3 beside that +3.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus softgarden, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 22 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 30 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 54 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 44 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 42F | +3 | +3.2 |
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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 8 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own 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 | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
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 softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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.