§ The result
Hireology leads UKG by 13 points.
Rubric v1.0 scores the ATS-integrated entries Hireology and UKG at 57 and 44, a gap of 13 points. Hireology leads 5 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while UKG leads 1, including Data Governance Disclosure, and 1 is level. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, UKG 30) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 72% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 5 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
UKG
UKG is an enterprise HCM and workforce-management suite whose UKG Pro Recruiting applicant-tracking module, augmented by the embedded Bryte AI layer, drafts job descriptions and produces profile-match candidate scores to rank and shortlist applicants.
§ The record
Hireology and UKG are both filed under ATS-integrated 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.
| Record | Hireology | UKG |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2020 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 69% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · UKG 30
9.5 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 87% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · UKG 38
2.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · UKG 56
0.6 weighted points to UKG
12% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · UKG 52
0.6 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 98% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · UKG 48
0.4 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · UKG 55
0.2 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +12.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +13 beside that +12.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus UKG.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | UKG | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 48 | +2 | +0.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 30 | +53 | +9.5 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 35 | - | - |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 56 | -4 | -0.6 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 52 | +5 | +0.6 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 38 | +21 | +2.5 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 55 | +3 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 44 (F) | +13 | +12.7 |
§ 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 | UKG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 0 | 2 | — |
| 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 | 0 | 2 | — |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 25 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain | 6 | 8 | 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; UKG has 14 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 6 with a source URL, 8 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 43 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 14 for UKG, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- UKG 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