§ The result
HiPeople leads Recruiterflow on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 25 points between HiPeople (Assessment) and Recruiterflow (ATS-integrated): 61 (D) for HiPeople, 36 (F) for Recruiterflow. HiPeople leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; Recruiterflow leads none. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HiPeople 84, Recruiterflow 18) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 47% 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
Recruiterflow
Recruiterflow is an ATS and CRM for recruiting agencies and executive search firms. Its AIRA AI layer ranks candidates already in a firm's database against each job with an explainable 0–100 Criteria Score (AIRA Matchmaker, shown as the 'AI Matches' card), and adds natural-language candidate search, external profile sourcing and an AI call notetaker that fills in interview scorecards.
§ The record
HiPeople is filed under Assessment AI, Recruiterflow under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HiPeople is in scope of Illinois HB 3773 and Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiPeople | Recruiterflow |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | DE | US |
| Founded | 2019 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 47% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiPeople 84 · Recruiterflow 18
11.9 weighted points to HiPeople
20% weight · 71% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiPeople 62 · Recruiterflow 33
5.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiPeople 60 · Recruiterflow 33
3.2 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiPeople 58 · Recruiterflow 44
2.1 weighted points to HiPeople
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiPeople 66 · Recruiterflow 56
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
15% weight · 98% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiPeople 35 · Recruiterflow 30
0.8 weighted points to HiPeople
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiPeople 62 · Recruiterflow 58
0.5 weighted points to HiPeople
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +25.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 25.1 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +25 beside that +25.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiPeople minus Recruiterflow.
| Category | Weight | HiPeople | Recruiterflow | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 62 | 33 | +29 | +5.8 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 84 | 18 | +66 | +11.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 30 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 58 | 44 | +14 | +2.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 62 | 58 | +4 | +0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 60 | 33 | +27 | +3.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 66 | 56 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 61 (D) | 36 (F) | +25 | +25.1 |
§ 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 | Recruiterflow | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 5 | 1 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 2 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own 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 | 6 | 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; Recruiterflow has 31 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 6 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 62 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 31 for HiPeople, across 3 distinct source domains, and 31 for Recruiterflow, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiPeople last reviewed
- August 2, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Recruiterflow 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