§ The result
Hireology leads HiringBranch by 5 points.
Hireology scores 57 and HiringBranch 52 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Hireology and HiringBranch each lead 3 of the 7 criteria, with 1 level, though the side of the split Hireology holds (headed by Bias Audit Transparency) adds up to more weighted points. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, HiringBranch 60) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 59% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 3 criteria it leads.
Vendor profile
Hireology
Hireology is an applicant tracking and hiring platform for multi-location auto dealers, healthcare providers and hospitality operators. Its AI features score applicants against employer-defined criteria (AI Match) and run rubric-scored, voice-based first-round screening interviews (AI Interview).
Vendor profile
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
§ The record
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, HiringBranch under Assessment AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | HiringBranch |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | CA |
| Founded | 2010 | 2014 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 42% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · HiringBranch 60
4.1 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 65% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · HiringBranch 40
2.3 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · HiringBranch 60
2.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · HiringBranch 52
0.6 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · HiringBranch 64
0.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · HiringBranch 55
0.4 weighted points to HiringBranch
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +4.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 9.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +5 beside that +4.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus HiringBranch.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | HiringBranch | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 60 | +23 | +4.1 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 40 | +19 | +2.3 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 52 (F) | +5 | +4.1 |
§ 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 | Hireology | HiringBranch | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 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 | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 48 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 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