§ The result
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) leads HireQuotient by 23 points.
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) finishes 23 points clear of HireQuotient inside the Sourcing cohort under rubric v1.0: 57 against 34. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of Juicebox (PeopleGPT): Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is ahead on Bias Audit Transparency and HireQuotient on Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HireQuotient 18, Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage Juicebox (PeopleGPT) holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
HireQuotient
EasySource by HireQuotient is an AI recruiting platform for North American frontline employers that sources and scores candidates from LinkedIn, the open web and partner databases, verifies licences, automates outreach including AI voice calls, and adds an ATS, interview scheduling, and skills, cognitive and AI-scored video assessments.
Vendor profile
Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Juicebox (PeopleGPT) is an AI talent-sourcing search engine that lets recruiters find, rank, and reach candidates across 800M+ public profiles using natural-language queries instead of Boolean search, with an "Autopilot" agent that scores and ranks profiles against job criteria.
§ The record
HireQuotient and Juicebox (PeopleGPT) are both filed under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 2 secondary categories: Screening and ATS-integrated.
Both are in scope of EU AI Act, NYC LL 144, Colorado AI Act and Illinois HB 3773. Only HireQuotient is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HireQuotient | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Low | Mid |
| Headquarters | SG | US |
| Founded | 2021 | 2022 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 49% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HireQuotient 18 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 84
11.9 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
20% weight · 63% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HireQuotient 35 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 52
3.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 75% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HireQuotient 30 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 55
3.0 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 85% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HireQuotient 40 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 56
2.4 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
15% weight · 93% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HireQuotient 22 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 35
1.9 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
12% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HireQuotient 57 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 50
0.8 weighted points to HireQuotient
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HireQuotient 50 · Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 60
0.8 weighted points to Juicebox (PeopleGPT)
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -22.6 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 24.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -23 beside that -22.6.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HireQuotient minus Juicebox (PeopleGPT).
| Category | Weight | HireQuotient | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 35 | 52 | -17 | -3.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 18 | 84 | -66 | -11.9 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 22 | 35 | -13 | -1.9 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 40 | 56 | -16 | -2.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 57 | 50 | +7 | +0.8 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 30 | 55 | -25 | -3.0 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 50 | 60 | -10 | -0.8 |
| Total | 100% | 34 (F) | 57 (F) | -23 | -22.6 |
§ 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 | HireQuotient | Juicebox (PeopleGPT) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Audit reportSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 24 | 5 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 4 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HireQuotient has 29 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 24 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; Juicebox (PeopleGPT) has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 4 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Juicebox (PeopleGPT) sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 45 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 29 for HireQuotient, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Juicebox (PeopleGPT), across 4 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HireQuotient last reviewed
- September 25, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Juicebox (PeopleGPT) 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