§ The result
HiPeople leads Juicebox (PeopleGPT) on 5 of the 7 criteria.
HiPeople (Assessment) edges Juicebox (PeopleGPT) (Sourcing) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F). HiPeople leads 5 of the 7 criteria and the remaining 2 are level, so Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on none of them; the closest of the 5 HiPeople leads is Data Governance Disclosure, HiPeople 58 to Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56. HiPeople takes the heaviest weighted swing, Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (HiPeople 62, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52), which is 41% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds; the widest raw gap is a different criterion, Human Oversight Design, HiPeople 62 to Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50.
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
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 41% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
2.0 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
0.6 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
0.3 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 52 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 84 | - | - |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.3 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 60 | +6 | +0.5 |
| 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 | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 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; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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