§ The result
Hireology takes the total, Test Partnership takes more of the criteria.
Hireology scores 57 and Test Partnership 50 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the ATS-integrated and Assessment cohorts. Test Partnership 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, Test Partnership 48) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 67% 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
Test Partnership
Test Partnership publishes computer-adaptive aptitude tests, the TPAQ personality questionnaire and MindmetriQ game-based cognitive assessments. Employers review, rank and export the resulting norm-referenced percentile and sten scores in its dashboard, through its API or in integrated ATSs.
§ The record
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Test Partnership 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 Test Partnership is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | Test Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 2010 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 52% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Test Partnership 48
6.3 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Test Partnership 33
3.1 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 89% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Test Partnership 57
1.4 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Test Partnership 57
0.8 weighted points to Test Partnership
8% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Test Partnership 62
0.3 weighted points to Test Partnership
15% weight · 99% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Test Partnership 36
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Test Partnership 58
0.1 weighted points to Test Partnership
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 12.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +6.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Test Partnership.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Test Partnership | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 57 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 48 | +35 | +6.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 36 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 57 | -5 | -0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 58 | -1 | -0.1 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 33 | +26 | +3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 62 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 50 (F) | +7 | +6.7 |
§ 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 | Test Partnership | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate 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% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 26 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; Test Partnership has 32 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 26 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology and Test Partnership sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 61 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 32 for Test Partnership, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Test Partnership 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