Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs softgarden
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
softgarden
softgarden is a German cloud applicant tracking system (multiposting, career sites, applicant management and onboarding) with optional AI features: AI-Assisted Applicant Matching, which highlights applicants who closely match a job's requirements, and a newer LLM-based Screening Assistant, which scores each applicant against screening criteria.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
1 point separates softgarden and Harri.
softgarden holds a 1-point edge over Harri under rubric v1.0, 42 to 41, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. The 7 criteria split 4 to 2 in favour of softgarden, with 1 level: softgarden is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and Harri on FRIA Support. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing are the same criterion, FRIA Support, and Harri holds it (Harri 44, softgarden 30, 15% weight), worth 93% of the weighted advantage Harri builds across the 2 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri2
- softgarden4
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- FRIA Support44 vs 30
- Heaviest weighted swing
- FRIA Support15% weight
The record
Categories, scope and company facts.
Harri and softgarden are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harri | softgarden |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | DE |
| Founded | 2012 | 2001 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
FRIA Support
15% weight41% of the movement so far
Harri44softgarden302.1 weighted points to Harri
- 2
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight68% of the movement so far
Harri35softgarden421.4 weighted points to softgarden
- 3
Human Oversight Design
12% weight82% of the movement so far
Harri52softgarden580.7 weighted points to softgarden
- 4
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight91% of the movement so far
Harri40softgarden440.5 weighted points to softgarden
- 5
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight97% of the movement so far
Harri52softgarden540.3 weighted points to softgarden
- 6
Customer Documentation
8% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri60softgarden580.2 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -0.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 5.2 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 -0.6.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus softgarden, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | softgarden | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 42 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 22 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 30 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 54 | -2 | -0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 44 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 58 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 42F | -1 | -0.6 |
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 | softgarden | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 31 | 5 | 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; softgarden has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 36 for softgarden, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- softgarden 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.