§ The result
Workable leads HighMatch by 5 points.
Under rubric v1.0, Workable, filed under ATS-integrated, finishes on 48 and HighMatch, filed under Assessment, on 43, 5 points apart. HighMatch takes 2 of the 7 criteria, FRIA Support among them, against 5 for Workable, whose share includes Bias Audit Transparency. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HighMatch 30, Workable 42, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 39% of the weighted advantage Workable holds across the 5 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
HighMatch is filed under Assessment AI, Workable 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2005 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 33% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HighMatch 30 · Workable 42
2.2 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HighMatch 45 · Workable 55
2.0 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HighMatch 52 · Workable 58
0.9 weighted points to Workable
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HighMatch 30 · Workable 25
0.8 weighted points to HighMatch
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HighMatch 60 · Workable 62
0.2 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HighMatch 40 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to Workable
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HighMatch 58 · Workable 56
0.2 weighted points to HighMatch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 6.5 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 -4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HighMatch minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | HighMatch | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 45 | 55 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 30 | 42 | -12 | -2.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 30 | 25 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 58 | -6 | -0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 60 | 62 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 43 (F) | 48 (F) | -5 | -4.6 |
§ 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.
| Criterion | Weight | HighMatch | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HighMatch and Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 52 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 35 for HighMatch, across 2 distinct source domains, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HighMatch last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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