HomeCompareHirePro vs Pin

Side-by-side · Rubric v1.0

HirePro vs Pin

Export comparison (CSV)Pro→

§ The result

2 points separate Pin and HirePro.

Pin holds a 2-point edge over HirePro under rubric v1.0, 40 to 38, across the Sourcing and Screening cohorts. HirePro takes 1 of the 7 criteria, Human Oversight Design among them, against 4 for Pin, whose share includes Post-Market Monitoring, and 2 are level. Post-Market Monitoring is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HirePro 35, Pin 45 — and at a 12% weight it carries 47% of the weighted advantage Pin holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.

§ The record

HirePro is filed under Screening AI, Pin under Candidate sourcing AI. They record no secondary category in common.

Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773 and Colorado AI Act. Only HirePro is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.

RecordHireProPin
Price tierMidLow
HeadquartersINUS
Founded20042024

§ What decides it

The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.

  1. 12% weight · 38% of the movement so far

    Post-Market Monitoring

    HirePro 35 · Pin 45

    1.2 weighted points to Pin

  2. 15% weight · 62% of the movement so far

    FRIA Support

    HirePro 25 · Pin 30

    0.8 weighted points to Pin

  3. 12% weight · 81% of the movement so far

    Human Oversight Design

    HirePro 55 · Pin 50

    0.6 weighted points to HirePro

  4. 18% weight · 92% of the movement so far

    Bias Audit Transparency

    HirePro 33 · Pin 35

    0.4 weighted points to Pin

  5. 8% weight · 100% of the movement so far

    Customer Documentation

    HirePro 52 · Pin 55

    0.2 weighted points to Pin

Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 5 figures above sum to -1.9 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 3.2 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -2 beside that -1.9.

§ Category-by-category

Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.

Δ is HirePro minus Pin.

CategoryWeightHireProPinΔ rawΔ weighted
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%3030--
Bias Audit Transparency18%3335-2-0.4
FRIA Support15%2530-5-0.8
Data Governance Disclosure15%5050--
Human Oversight Design12%5550+5+0.6
Post-Market Monitoring12%3545-10-1.2
Customer Documentation8%5255-3-0.2
Total100%38 (F)40 (F)-2-1.9

§ 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.

CriterionWeightHireProPin
CitedAbsencesAudit / hostingCitedAbsencesAudit / hosting
Article 11 Technical Documentation20%31Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Bias Audit Transparency18%21—31Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain
FRIA Support15%11Sources on the vendor's own domain31Sources on the vendor's own domain
Data Governance Disclosure15%31Sources on the vendor's own domain70Sources on the vendor's own domain
Human Oversight Design12%60Sources on the vendor's own domain60Sources on the vendor's own domain
Post-Market Monitoring12%21Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
Customer Documentation8%41Sources on the vendor's own domain51Sources on the vendor's own domain
All criteria100%216Sources on the vendor's own domain325Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain

HirePro has 27 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 21 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Pin has 37 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 32 with a source URL, 5 documented absences.

Provenance

The scores above are documented by 64 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 27 for HirePro, across 1 distinct source domain, and 37 for Pin, across 1 distinct source domain.

Rubric
v1.0
HirePro last reviewed
September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
Pin 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.