HomeCompareHarver vs HiringBranch

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Harver vs HiringBranch

Export comparison (CSV)Pro

§ The result

4 points separate Harver and HiringBranch.

Within the Assessment cohort, Harver edges HiringBranch by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 56 to 52. Harver and HiringBranch each lead 2 of the 7 criteria, with 3 level, though the side of the split Harver holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, HiringBranch 60 — and at an 18% weight it carries 78% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 2 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Harver and HiringBranch are both filed under Assessment AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.

RecordHarverHiringBranch
Price tierEnterpriseEnterprise
HeadquartersNLCA
Founded20152014

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 70% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Harver 80 · HiringBranch 60

    3.6 weighted points to Harver

  2. 20% weight · 89% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Harver 65 · HiringBranch 60

    1.0 weighted points to Harver

  3. 8% weight · 95% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    Harver 60 · HiringBranch 64

    0.3 weighted points to HiringBranch

  4. 12% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    Harver 50 · HiringBranch 52

    0.2 weighted points to HiringBranch

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 4 figures above sum to +4.0 — 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 +4 beside that +4.0.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Harver minus HiringBranch.

CategoryWeightHarverHiringBranchΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6560+5+1.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%8060+20+3.6
FRIA Support15%3535--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5555--
Human Oversight Design12%5052-2-0.2
Post-Market Monitoring12%4040--
Customer Documentation8%6064-4-0.3
Total100%56 (F)52 (F)+4+4.0

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHarverHiringBranch
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%30Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain21Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%10Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%1021Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%10Sources on the vendor's own domain30Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%100Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain136Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 29 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
Harver last reviewed
May 21, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
HiringBranch 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.