§ The result
Hireology takes the total, Workday Recruiting AI takes more of the criteria.
Within the ATS-integrated cohort, Hireology edges Workday Recruiting AI by 1 point under rubric v1.0, 57 to 56. Workday Recruiting AI leads more of the criteria than Hireology — 4 to 2 — but Bias Audit Transparency, which Hireology leads, carries 18% of the rubric, and the weighted sum still falls to Hireology. Bias Audit Transparency, at 18%, is the heaviest weighted swing and goes to Hireology (Hireology 83, Workday Recruiting AI 60), 59% of the weighted advantage it holds, while the widest raw gap is Post-Market Monitoring, Hireology 59 to Workday Recruiting AI 35.
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
Workday Recruiting AI
AI features built into Workday Recruiting, including candidate-skill matching and recruiter productivity tools, surfaced inside the Workday ATS.
§ The record
Hireology and Workday Recruiting AI 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 | Workday Recruiting AI |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2005 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 32% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Workday Recruiting AI 60
4.1 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Workday Recruiting AI 70
4.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
12% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Workday Recruiting AI 35
2.9 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
1.0 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
8% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Workday Recruiting AI 65
0.6 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
15% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Workday Recruiting AI 55
0.4 weighted points to Workday Recruiting AI
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 6 figures above sum to +1.0 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 13.0 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 +1.0.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Workday Recruiting AI.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Workday Recruiting AI | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 70 | -20 | -4.0 |
| 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 | 65 | -8 | -1.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 35 | +24 | +2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 65 | -7 | -0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 56 (F) | +1 | +1.0 |
§ 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 | Workday Recruiting AI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 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 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 0 | Sources 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 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 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 | 9 | 2 | 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; Workday Recruiting AI has 11 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 9 with a source URL, 2 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 40 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 11 for Workday Recruiting AI, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workday Recruiting AI last reviewed
- May 21, 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