Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs Plum
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
Plum
Plum is a pre-employment talent assessment platform that uses a Five-Factor (Big Five) psychometric Discovery Survey and a Talent Match model to score and rank candidates on behavioral "durable skills" for role fit, hiring, and development.
Substantial gaps
Assessment
The result
Plum leads Harri by 13 points.
Plum, filed under Assessment, comes out 13 points above Harri, filed under ATS-integrated: 54 against 41 under rubric v1.0. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of Plum, with 1 level: Plum 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, Plum 83 — and at an 18% weight it carries 68% of the weighted advantage Plum holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- Plum4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Bias Audit Transparency22 vs 83
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Bias Audit Transparency18% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Plum under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
Only Plum is in scope of
| Record | Harri | Plum |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2012 | 2012 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight58% of the movement so far
Harri22Plum8311.0 weighted points to Plum
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight82% of the movement so far
Harri35Plum584.6 weighted points to Plum
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight95% of the movement so far
Harri44Plum282.4 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight97% of the movement so far
Harri40Plum360.5 weighted points to Harri
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight99% of the movement so far
Harri52Plum540.3 weighted points to Plum
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri60Plum630.2 weighted points to Plum
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.0 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -13 beside that -13.2.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Plum, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Plum | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 58 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 83 | -61 | -11.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 28 | +16 | +2.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 36 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 63 | -3 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 54F | -13 | -13.2 |
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 | Harri | Plum | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 15 | 4 | 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; Plum has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 15 with a source URL, 4 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 46 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for Plum, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Plum 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.