HomeCompareHarri vs Recruitee

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Harri vs Recruitee

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

1 point separates Recruitee and Harri.

Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Recruitee edges Harri by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41. Recruitee leads 3 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Harri leads 2, including FRIA Support, and 2 are level. FRIA Support is at once the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing, and it belongs to Harri — Harri 44, Recruitee 27, on a 15% weight — which is 94% of the weighted advantage Harri holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Harri and Recruitee 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.

RecordHarriRecruitee
Price tierEnterpriseMid
HeadquartersUSNL
Founded20122015

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 15% weight · 41% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Harri 44 · Recruitee 27

    2.5 weighted points to Harri

  2. 18% weight · 64% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Harri 22 · Recruitee 30

    1.4 weighted points to Recruitee

  3. 20% weight · 86% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Harri 35 · Recruitee 42

    1.4 weighted points to Recruitee

  4. 12% weight · 97% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Harri 52 · Recruitee 58

    0.7 weighted points to Recruitee

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Harri 60 · Recruitee 58

    0.2 weighted points to Harri

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -0.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -1 beside that -0.8.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Harri minus Recruitee.

CategoryWeightHarriRecruiteeΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3542-7-1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2230-8-1.4
FRIA Support15%4427+17+2.5
Data Governance Disclosure15%5252--
Human Oversight Design12%5258-6-0.7
Post-Market Monitoring12%4040--
Customer Documentation8%6058+2+0.2
Total100%41 (F)42 (F)-1-0.8

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHarriRecruitee
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%22Sources on the vendor's own domain11
FRIA Support15%21Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%198Sources on the vendor's own domain147Sources on the vendor's own domain

Harri has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 19 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Recruitee has 21 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 14 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 21 for Recruitee, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Harri last reviewed
August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Recruitee last reviewed
July 17, 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.