Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs iCIMS
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
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.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
iCIMS leads Harri by 14 points.
Both filed under ATS-integrated, iCIMS and Harri come out 55 and 41 under rubric v1.0, 14 points in favour of iCIMS. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of iCIMS: iCIMS is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and Harri on FRIA Support. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Harri 22, iCIMS 68) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 57% of the weighted advantage iCIMS holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri1
- iCIMS6
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 68
- 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.
Harri and iCIMS are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| 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.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight53% of the movement so far
Harri22iCIMS688.3 weighted points to iCIMS
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight83% of the movement so far
Harri35iCIMS584.6 weighted points to iCIMS
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight89% of the movement so far
Harri44iCIMS380.9 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Human Oversight Design
12% weight94% of the movement so far
Harri52iCIMS580.7 weighted points to iCIMS
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight97% of the movement so far
Harri52iCIMS560.6 weighted points to iCIMS
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight99% of the movement so far
Harri40iCIMS420.2 weighted points to iCIMS
- 7
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri60iCIMS620.2 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, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| 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% | 41F | 55F | -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
Scored against