Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0
Harri vs UKG
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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
Substantial gaps
ATS-integrated
The result
3 points separate UKG and Harri.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, UKG edges Harri by 3 points under rubric v1.0, 44 to 41. Harri and UKG each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split UKG holds (headed by Article 11 Technical Documentation) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (Harri 35, UKG 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage UKG holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Criteria won
7 criteria
- Harri3
- UKG3
- Level1
- Widest raw gap
- Article 11 Technical Documentation35 vs 48
- Heaviest weighted swing
- Article 11 Technical Documentation20% 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 UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of
| Record | Harri | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2012 | 2020 |
What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
- 1
Article 11 Technical Documentation
20% weight39% of the movement so far
Harri35UKG482.6 weighted points to UKG
- 2
Bias Audit Transparency
18% weight61% of the movement so far
Harri22UKG301.4 weighted points to UKG
- 3
FRIA Support
15% weight81% of the movement so far
Harri44UKG351.3 weighted points to Harri
- 4
Data Governance Disclosure
15% weight90% of the movement so far
Harri52UKG560.6 weighted points to UKG
- 5
Customer Documentation
8% weight96% of the movement so far
Harri60UKG550.4 weighted points to Harri
- 6
Post-Market Monitoring
12% weight100% of the movement so far
Harri40UKG380.2 weighted points to Harri
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to -2.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -3 beside that -2.7.
Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Harri minus UKG, coloured for whichever of the two it favours.
| Category | Weight | Harri | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 48 | -13 | -2.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 22 | 30 | -8 | -1.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 44 | 35 | +9 | +1.3 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 38 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.4 |
| Total | 100% | 41F | 44F | -3 | -2.7 |
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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 19 | 8 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for Harri, across 1 distinct source domain, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Harri last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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