§ The result
Hireology leads HighMatch by 14 points.
Hireology sits 14 points above HighMatch under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 43 — with Hireology filed under ATS-integrated and HighMatch under Assessment. The 7 criteria split 4 to 1 in favour of Hireology, with 2 level: Hireology is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HighMatch on Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HighMatch 30, Hireology 83) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 70% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 4 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HighMatch
HighMatch sells pre-employment assessments built by I-O psychologists (personality, cognitive, skills, situational judgment, culture fit and minimum-qualification screens), including the Berke Assessment for small businesses, that score candidates against weighted, role-specific hiring profiles and return job-fit scores, trait reports and tailored interview guides.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
§ The record
HighMatch is filed under Assessment AI, Hireology under ATS-integrated AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HighMatch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HighMatch | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2005 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HighMatch 30 · Hireology 83
9.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HighMatch 40 · Hireology 59
2.3 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Hireology 50
1.0 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Hireology 35
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Hireology 57
0.4 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -13.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -14 beside that -13.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 50 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 83 | -53 | -9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 35 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 52 | - | - |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 57 | +3 | +0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 59 | -19 | -2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 58 | - | - |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 57 (F) | -14 | -13.2 |
§ 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 | HighMatch | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 31 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HighMatch has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 31 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch and Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Hireology 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.
§ Where next