§ The result
Hireology leads XOR on all 7 criteria.
Rubric v1.0 puts 27 points between Hireology (ATS-integrated) and XOR (Screening): 57 for Hireology, 30 for XOR. Hireology leads every one of the 7 criteria and 3 of them by 20 raw points or more, Bias Audit Transparency among them; XOR leads none. One criterion, Bias Audit Transparency, is both the widest raw gap (Hireology 83, XOR 18) and the heaviest weighted swing, and at 18% weight it makes up 44% of the weighted advantage Hireology holds across the 7 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
XOR
XOR is a text-first conversational-AI recruiting platform that pre-screens and scores high-volume and hourly candidates with recruiter-defined knockout/scoring questions over SMS, WhatsApp, and Messenger, then auto-schedules interviews on the recruiter's calendar.
§ The record
Hireology is filed under ATS-integrated AI, XOR 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.
| Record | Hireology | XOR |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Mid |
| Headquarters | US | US |
| Founded | 2010 | 2016 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hireology 83 · XOR 18
11.7 weighted points to Hireology
20% weight · 66% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hireology 50 · XOR 20
6.0 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hireology 59 · XOR 33
3.1 weighted points to Hireology
12% weight · 86% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hireology 57 · XOR 40
2.0 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 91% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hireology 35 · XOR 25
1.5 weighted points to Hireology
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hireology 52 · XOR 42
1.5 weighted points to Hireology
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hireology 58 · XOR 48
0.8 weighted points to Hireology
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +26.7 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 26.7 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +27 beside that +26.7.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hireology minus XOR.
| Category | Weight | Hireology | XOR | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 20 | +30 | +6.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 83 | 18 | +65 | +11.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 42 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 40 | +17 | +2.0 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 59 | 33 | +26 | +3.1 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 58 | 48 | +10 | +0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 57 (F) | 30 (F) | +27 | +26.7 |
§ 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 | XOR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 4 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | 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 | 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 | 11 | 7 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Hireology has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 25 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; XOR has 18 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 11 with a source URL, 7 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 47 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for Hireology, across 2 distinct source domains, and 18 for XOR, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hireology last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- XOR 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