HomeCompareHiBob vs UKG

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

HiBob vs UKG

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

2 points separate HiBob and UKG.

Within the ATS-integrated cohort, HiBob edges UKG by 2 points under rubric v1.0, 46 to 44. HiBob leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while UKG leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency, and 1 is level. UKG takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (HiBob 20, UKG 30), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Human Oversight Design, HiBob 63 to UKG 52.

§ The record

HiBob and UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.

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

RecordHiBobUKG
Price tierMidEnterprise
HeadquartersGBUS
Founded20152020

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 18% weight · 29% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    HiBob 20 · UKG 30

    1.8 weighted points to UKG

  2. 20% weight · 51% of the movement so far

    Article 11 Technical Documentation

    HiBob 55 · UKG 48

    1.4 weighted points to HiBob

  3. 12% weight · 73% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    HiBob 63 · UKG 52

    1.3 weighted points to HiBob

  4. 12% weight · 90% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    HiBob 47 · UKG 38

    1.1 weighted points to HiBob

  5. 8% weight · 98% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    HiBob 61 · UKG 55

    0.5 weighted points to HiBob

  6. 15% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Data Governance Disclosure

    HiBob 57 · UKG 56

    0.1 weighted points to HiBob

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +2.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +2 beside that +2.6.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is HiBob minus UKG.

CategoryWeightHiBobUKGΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%5548+7+1.4
Bias Audit Transparency18%2030-10-1.8
FRIA Support15%3535--
Data Governance Disclosure15%5756+1+0.1
Human Oversight Design12%6352+11+1.3
Post-Market Monitoring12%4738+9+1.1
Customer Documentation8%6155+6+0.5
Total100%46 (F)44 (F)+2+2.6

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHiBobUKG
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%51Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%31Sources on the vendor's own domain02—
FRIA Support15%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%41Sources on the vendor's own domain20Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%61Sources on the vendor's own domain02—
Post-Market Monitoring12%31Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%51Sources on the vendor's own domain11Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%297Sources on the vendor's own domain68Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

HiBob has 36 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 29 with a source URL, 7 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 50 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 36 for HiBob, across 4 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.

Rubric
v1.0
HiBob last reviewed
September 25, 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.