§ The result
Harri leads Qureos by 8 points.
Harri scores 41 and Qureos 33 under rubric v1.0, an 8-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Qureos takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 6 for Harri, whose share includes FRIA Support. The advantage Harri holds is spread out: FRIA Support is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing (Harri 44, Qureos 25, 15% weight), yet it supplies only 34% of the weighted points Harri gains across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
Harri is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Qureos is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Harri | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | AE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
15% weight · 33% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Harri 44 · Qureos 25
2.9 weighted points to Harri
18% weight · 53% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Harri 22 · Qureos 12
1.8 weighted points to Harri
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Harri 35 · Qureos 28
1.4 weighted points to Harri
15% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Harri 52 · Qureos 44
1.2 weighted points to Harri
8% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Harri 60 · Qureos 52
0.6 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Harri 40 · Qureos 35
0.6 weighted points to Harri
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Harri 52 · Qureos 54
0.2 weighted points to Qureos
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | Harri | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 28 | +7 | +1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 12 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 25 | +19 | +2.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 44 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 35 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 52 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 41 (F) | 33 (F) | +8 | +8.3 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources 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 | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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.
§ Where next