HomeCompareHarver vs Keka

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

Harver vs Keka

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

Harver leads Keka on 5 of the 7 criteria.

Under rubric v1.0, Harver (Assessment) opens a 19-point lead on Keka (ATS-integrated), 56 to 37. Keka is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: Harver takes 5, the remaining 2 are level, and the nearest of those 5 is FRIA Support, Harver 35 to Keka 30. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — Harver 80, Keka 20 — and at an 18% weight it carries 55% of the weighted advantage Harver holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

Harver is filed under Assessment AI, Keka under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.

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

RecordHarverKeka
Price tierEnterpriseLow
HeadquartersNLIN
Founded20152014

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 55% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    Harver 80 · Keka 20

    10.8 weighted points to Harver

  2. 20% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    Harver 65 · Keka 30

    7.0 weighted points to Harver

  3. 15% weight · 94% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    Harver 35 · Keka 30

    0.8 weighted points to Harver

  4. 15% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    Harver 55 · Keka 50

    0.8 weighted points to Harver

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

    Customer Documentation

    Harver 60 · Keka 55

    0.4 weighted points to Harver

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to +19.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 19.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +19 beside that +19.7.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is Harver minus Keka.

CategoryWeightHarverKekaΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%6530+35+7.0
Bias Audit Transparency18%8020+60+10.8
FRIA Support15%3530+5+0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5550+5+0.8
Human Oversight Design12%5050--
Post-Market Monitoring12%4040--
Customer Documentation8%6055+5+0.4
Total100%56 (F)37 (F)+19+19.7

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHarverKeka
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 domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain21Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%10Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%10Sources on the vendor's own domain71Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%10—31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%10Sources on the vendor's own domain61Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%100Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain287Sources on the vendor's own domain

Harver has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 0 documented absences; Keka has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 10 for Harver, across 1 distinct source domain, and 35 for Keka, across 1 distinct source domain.

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