§ The result
HiPeople leads Qureos on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 28 points between HiPeople (Assessment) and Qureos (Screening): 61 (D) for HiPeople, 33 (F) for Qureos. HiPeople leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Qureos leads none. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HiPeople 84, Qureos 12) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 46% of the weighted advantage HiPeople holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
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
Qureos
Qureos is a Dubai-based AI recruiting platform whose Iris agents source candidates, score and rank applicants against recruiter-set criteria, and run AI voice and video interviews with personality scoring, alongside an ATS and a job-seeker marketplace focused on MENA and South Asia.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Qureos under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act, Colorado AI Act and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Qureos |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | AE |
| Founded | 2019 | 2021 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 46% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Qureos 12
13.0 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Qureos 28
6.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 80% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Qureos 35
3.0 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Qureos 44
2.1 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Qureos 25
1.5 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Qureos 52
1.1 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Qureos 54
1.0 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +28.4 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 28.4 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +28 beside that +28.4.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Qureos.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Qureos | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 28 | +34 | +6.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 12 | +72 | +13.0 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 54 | +8 | +1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 35 | +25 | +3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 52 | +14 | +1.1 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 33 (F) | +28 | +28.4 |
§ 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 | Qureos | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
HiPeople has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 27 with a source URL, 8 documented absences; Qureos has 35 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 7 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for HiPeople sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 66 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 35 for Qureos, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Qureos 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