§ The result
HiPeople leads Hireology on 6 of the 7 criteria.
HiPeople holds a 4-point edge over Hireology under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F), across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Hireology is ahead on none of the 7 criteria: HiPeople takes 6, the remaining criterion is level, and the nearest of those 6 is Bias Audit Transparency, HiPeople 84 to Hireology 83. Article 11 Technical Documentation is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 62, Hireology 50 — and at a 20% weight it carries 50% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HiPeople
HiPeople is a Berlin-based hiring platform combining a 400+ test skills and personality assessment library, automated AI reference checks, AI resume/application screening that scores candidates against job criteria, and AI screening calls.
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
HiPeople 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 HiPeople is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Hireology |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2010 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 50% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Hireology 50
2.4 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Hireology 52
0.9 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 81% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Hireology 58
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Hireology 57
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
18% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Hireology 83
0.2 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Hireology 59
0.1 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 4.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Hireology.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Hireology | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +2.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 83 | +1 | +0.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 52 | +6 | +0.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 57 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 59 | +1 | +0.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 58 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 57 (F) | +4 | +4.8 |
§ 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 | HiPeople | Hireology | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | 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% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 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% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | 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 |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 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 HiPeople and Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 60 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 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