§ The result
Hireology takes the total, Rippling takes more of the criteria.
Hireology holds a 1-point edge over Rippling under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56, with both scored in the ATS-integrated cohort. Rippling leads more of the criteria than Hireology — 5 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Hireology leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Hireology. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, Rippling 42) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 84% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 2 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
Rippling
Rippling Recruiting is an applicant tracking system within Rippling's all-in-one HR/IT/finance platform that uses AI to review and screen job applications, summarize interviewer feedback, transcribe video interviews, flag application fraud, and automate interview scheduling.
§ The record
Hireology and Rippling are both filed under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144 and Colorado AI Act. Only Hireology is in scope of Illinois HB 3773.
| Record | Hireology | Rippling |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | High |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2016 |
§ 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 · Rippling 42
7.4 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 68% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Rippling 73
4.6 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Rippling 64
1.8 weighted points to Rippling
15% weight · 87% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Rippling 45
1.5 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Rippling 47
1.4 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Rippling 64
0.5 weighted points to Rippling
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Rippling 60
0.4 weighted points to Rippling
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +0.1 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 17.6 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +1 beside that +0.1.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Rippling.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Rippling | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 73 | -23 | -4.6 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 42 | +41 | +7.4 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 45 | -10 | -1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 64 | -12 | -1.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 60 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 47 | +12 | +1.4 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 64 | -6 | -0.5 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +0.1 |
§ 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 | Rippling | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 2 | 0 | 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 | 0 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 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 | 12 | 1 | 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; Rippling has 13 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 1 documented absence; 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 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 13 for Rippling, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Rippling 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