§ The result
HiBob leads impress.ai by 8 points.
Under rubric v1.0, HiBob, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 46 and impress.ai, filed under Screening, on 38, 8 points apart. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of HiBob: HiBob is ahead on Article 11 Technical Documentation and impress.ai on Bias Audit Transparency. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiBob 55, impress.ai 35 — and at a 20% weight it carries 44% of the weighted advantage HiBob holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiBob
HiBob's Bob is an all-in-one HR platform whose Bob Hiring applicant tracking module uses AI to give each application an explainable match score against recruiter-defined criteria (AI CV Matching) and to draft job descriptions, interview scorecards and candidate emails.
Vendor profile
impress.ai
impress.ai is a Singapore-headquartered recruitment automation platform that uses conversational AI assistants, resume parsing and scoring, and structured competency-based screening to filter, rank and shortlist job candidates, integrating with enterprise ATS systems.
§ The record
HiBob is filed under ATS-integrated AI, impress.ai under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only impress.ai is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiBob | impress.ai |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | GB | SG |
| Founded | 2015 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · impress.ai 35
4.0 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · impress.ai 32
1.8 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiBob 35 · impress.ai 25
1.5 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · impress.ai 52
1.3 weighted points to HiBob
18% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · impress.ai 22
0.4 weighted points to impress.ai
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiBob 57 · impress.ai 55
0.3 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · impress.ai 58
0.2 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +8.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +8 beside that +8.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus impress.ai.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | impress.ai | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 35 | +20 | +4.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 22 | -2 | -0.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 55 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 52 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 32 | +15 | +1.8 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 58 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 38 (F) | +8 | +8.8 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | HiBob | impress.ai | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 18 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; impress.ai has 25 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 18 with a source URL, 7 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 25 for impress.ai, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- impress.ai last reviewed
- August 2, 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