§ The result
Hireology leads Workstream by 18 points.
Hireology finishes 18 points clear of Workstream under rubric v1.0 — 57 against 39 — across the ATS-integrated and Screening cohorts. Hireology leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Workstream leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, Workstream 20) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 62% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 6 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
Workstream
Workstream is a mobile-first HR, payroll and hiring platform for hourly, multi-location employers such as QSR franchisees. Its hiring suite pairs a text-to-apply applicant tracking system with VoiceAI phone screens and VideoAI asynchronous video interviews, which return transcripts, AI summaries, pass/fail results for each question and match scores.
§ The record
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, Workstream under Screening AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only Workstream is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hireology | Workstream |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2017 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 60% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · Workstream 20
11.3 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 76% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · Workstream 35
2.9 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · Workstream 40
2.0 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · Workstream 27
1.2 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · Workstream 47
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 99% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · Workstream 61
0.5 weighted points to Workstream
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · Workstream 56
0.2 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +17.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 18.8 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +18 beside that +17.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus Workstream.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | Workstream | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 20 | +63 | +11.3 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 27 | +8 | +1.2 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 47 | +5 | +0.8 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 61 | -4 | -0.5 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 35 | +24 | +2.9 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 56 | +2 | +0.2 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 39 (F) | +18 | +17.8 |
§ 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 | Workstream | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 5 | 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 domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 7 | 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 | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 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 | 28 | 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; Workstream has 34 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 28 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Hireology and Workstream sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 63 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 34 for Workstream, across 2 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workstream 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