§ The result
HiPeople leads Paradox on all 7 criteria.
HiPeople finishes 20 points clear of Paradox under rubric v1.0 — 61 (D) against 41 (F) — across the Assessment and Scheduling cohorts. HiPeople leads every one of the 7 criteria and 4 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Paradox leads none. Bias Audit Transparency is the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing at once (HiPeople 84, Paradox 50, 18% weight), but it accounts for only 30% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 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
Paradox
Conversational AI ("Olivia") that screens, schedules, and engages candidates over chat and SMS, often deployed on top of an existing ATS.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Paradox under Scheduling 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 | Paradox |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 30% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Paradox 50
6.1 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Paradox 40
4.4 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 67% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Paradox 35
3.0 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Paradox 45
1.9 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Paradox 45
1.7 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Paradox 25
1.5 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Paradox 50
1.4 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +20.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 20.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +20 beside that +20.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Paradox.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Paradox | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 40 | +22 | +4.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 50 | +34 | +6.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 45 | +13 | +1.9 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 50 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 35 | +25 | +3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 45 | +21 | +1.7 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 41 (F) | +20 | +20.1 |
§ 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 | Paradox | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 1 | 0 | — |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 27 | 8 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 8 | 2 | 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; Paradox has 10 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 8 with a source URL, 2 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople and Paradox sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 41 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 10 for Paradox, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Paradox last reviewed
- May 21, 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