Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Hireology
Harri
Harri is a frontline workforce platform for hospitality, grocery and care employers whose pre-hire suite pairs a career portal and applicant tracking system with Carri, a conversational AI assistant that screens applicants and coordinates interviews, plus an agentic AI layer (Salli) for scheduling and labor-law compliance.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
Hireology leads Harri by 16 points.
The ATS-integrated cohort pairing of Hireology and Harri comes out 57 to 41 under rubric v1.0, a 16-point lead for Hireology. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Hireology, with 1 level: Hireology is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Harri on FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harri 22, Hireology 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 65% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- Hireology4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 83
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri and Hireology are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harri | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2010 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight60% of the movement so far
Harri22Hireology8311.0 weighted points to Hireology
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight76% of the movement so far
Harri35Hireology503.0 weighted points to Hireology
- 3
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight89% of the movement so far
Harri40Hireology592.3 weighted points to Hireology
- 4
FRIA Support
15% weight96% of the movement so far
Harri44Hireology351.3 weighted points to Harri
- 5
Human Oversight Design
12% weight99% of the movement so far
Harri52Hireology570.6 weighted points to Hireology
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri60Hireology580.2 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -15.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -16 beside that -15.3.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Hireology, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 50 | -15 | -3.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 83 | -61 | -11.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 35 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 59 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 57F | -16 | -15.3 |
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 | Harri | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 56 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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.