§ The result
HiPeople takes the total, LinkedIn Recruiter takes more of the criteria.
HiPeople holds a 4-point edge over LinkedIn Recruiter under rubric v1.0, 61 (D) to 57 (F), across the Assessment and Sourcing cohorts. LinkedIn Recruiter leads more of the criteria, 5 against 2 for HiPeople, yet HiPeople takes Bias Audit Transparency, which carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum with it. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiPeople 84, LinkedIn Recruiter 50 — and at an 18% weight it carries 84% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 2 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
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, LinkedIn Recruiter 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 | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 61% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
6.1 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 73% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.2 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 83% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
1.0 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
0.6 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 94% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
0.5 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
0.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
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 10.0 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 +4.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 67 | -5 | -1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 50 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 66 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 68 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 57 (F) | +4 | +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 | HiPeople | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 34 | 5 | 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; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople and LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 70 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter 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