§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads HireLogic on all 7 criteria.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) finishes 23 points clear of HireLogic under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 34 — across the Sourcing and Video interview cohorts. Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads every one of the 7 criteria, HireLogic none of them, and the closest of the 7 is Human Oversight Design, HireLogic 48 to Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (HireLogic 15, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 56% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 7 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
HireLogic
HireLogic joins phone, video and in-person interviews to transcribe them and generate AI notes, job-description coverage, candidate insights and flags for potentially discriminatory interviewer questions, and also offers an asynchronous AI interview agent that scores candidates on relevance and depth of knowledge.
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
HireLogic is filed under Video interview AI, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, EU AI Act, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only HireLogic is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HireLogic | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | Not recorded | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 56% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HireLogic 15 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
12.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 70% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HireLogic 28 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
3.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 79% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HireLogic 42 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
2.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HireLogic 45 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
1.6 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 94% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HireLogic 25 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
1.5 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
8% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HireLogic 45 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
1.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HireLogic 48 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
0.2 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.2 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 22.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -23 beside that -22.2.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HireLogic minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | HireLogic | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 42 | 52 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 15 | 84 | -69 | -12.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 25 | 35 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 45 | 56 | -11 | -1.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 48 | 50 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 28 | 55 | -27 | -3.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 45 | 60 | -15 | -1.2 |
| Total | 100% | 34 (F) | 57 (F) | -23 | -22.2 |
§ 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 | HireLogic | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | — | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 23 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HireLogic has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 23 with a source URL, 6 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 Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for HireLogic, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HireLogic last reviewed
- September 25, 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