§ The result
HiBob leads Willo by 5 points.
HiBob scores 46 and Willo 41 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Video interview cohorts. HiBob leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Willo leads 1, including Bias Audit Transparency. One criterion, Article 11 Technical Documentation, is both the widest raw gap (HiBob 55, Willo 38) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 20% weight it makes up 45% of the weighted advantage HiBob holds across the 6 criteria it leads.
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
Willo
Willo is a browser-based asynchronous (one-way) video interview platform that lets employers collect recorded video, audio, multiple-choice and written candidate responses, then uses AI to transcribe, summarize, rank candidates against employer-defined "Blueprint" criteria, and flag scripted or AI-generated answers.
§ The record
HiBob is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Willo under Video interview 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. Only Willo is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiBob | Willo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Low |
| Headquarters | GB | GB |
| Founded | 2015 | 2018 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 37% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiBob 55 · Willo 38
3.4 weighted points to HiBob
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiBob 20 · Willo 30
1.8 weighted points to Willo
15% weight · 72% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiBob 35 · Willo 25
1.5 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiBob 47 · Willo 36
1.3 weighted points to HiBob
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiBob 57 · Willo 53
0.6 weighted points to HiBob
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiBob 61 · Willo 54
0.6 weighted points to HiBob
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiBob 63 · Willo 62
0.1 weighted points to HiBob
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +5.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +5.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiBob minus Willo.
| Category | Weight | HiBob | Willo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 55 | 38 | +17 | +3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 20 | 30 | -10 | -1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 57 | 53 | +4 | +0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 63 | 62 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 47 | 36 | +11 | +1.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 61 | 54 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 46 (F) | 41 (F) | +5 | +5.7 |
§ 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 | HiBob | Willo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 29 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 9 | 5 | 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; Willo has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 5 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 Willo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiBob last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Willo 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