Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
hackajob vs Workable
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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
3 points separate Workable and hackajob.
Workable holds a 3-point edge over hackajob under rubric v1.0, 48 to 45, across the ATS-integrated and Sourcing cohorts. The criteria split evenly, 3 each to hackajob and Workable, with 1 level, and the weighted points on the side Workable 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, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 75% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 3 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- hackajob3
- Workable3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency20 vs 42
- 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, Workable under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | hackajob | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | GB | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight52% of the movement so far
hackajob20Workable424.0 weighted points to Workable
- 2
FRIA Support
15% weight65% of the movement so far
hackajob32Workable251.1 weighted points to hackajob
- 3
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight79% of the movement so far
hackajob60Workable551.0 weighted points to hackajob
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight90% of the movement so far
hackajob55Workable620.8 weighted points to Workable
- 5
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight96% of the movement so far
hackajob38Workable420.5 weighted points to Workable
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
hackajob60Workable560.3 weighted points to hackajob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.7 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 -2.9.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is hackajob minus Workable, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | hackajob | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 42 | -22 | -4.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 32 | 25 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 38 | 42 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 56 | +4 | +0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 45F | 48F | -3 | -2.9 |
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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources 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 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 59 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 42 for hackajob, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- hackajob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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.