§ The result
iCIMS leads Harri by 14 points.
iCIMS sits 14 points above Harri under rubric v1.0, 55 against 41, with both filed under ATS-integrated. iCIMS leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Harri leads 1, including FRIA Support. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harri 22, iCIMS 68 — and at an 18% weight it carries 57% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
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.
Vendor profile
iCIMS
Enterprise talent-acquisition / applicant tracking platform (the iCIMS Talent Cloud) that adds optional AI features - Candidate Ranking, Talent Match, and a GPT-powered Copilot - to source, rank, and engage candidates.
§ The record
Harri and iCIMS are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Harri | iCIMS |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2000 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harri 22 · iCIMS 68
8.3 weighted points to iCIMS
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harri 35 · iCIMS 58
4.6 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harri 44 · iCIMS 38
0.9 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harri 52 · iCIMS 58
0.7 weighted points to iCIMS
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harri 52 · iCIMS 56
0.6 weighted points to iCIMS
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harri 40 · iCIMS 42
0.2 weighted points to iCIMS
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harri 60 · iCIMS 62
0.2 weighted points to iCIMS
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -13.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 15.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus iCIMS.
| Category | Weight | Harri | iCIMS | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 58 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 68 | -46 | -8.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 38 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 55 (F) | -14 | -13.7 |
§ 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 | Harri | iCIMS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 21 | 3 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; iCIMS has 24 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 3 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 51 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 24 for iCIMS, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- iCIMS 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.
§ Where next