§ The result
LinkedIn Recruiter leads HiringBranch by 5 points.
LinkedIn Recruiter scores 57 and HiringBranch 52 under rubric v1.0, a 5-point gap across the Sourcing and Assessment cohorts. The 7 criteria split 6 to 1 in favour of LinkedIn Recruiter: LinkedIn Recruiter is ahead on Human Oversight Design and HiringBranch on Bias Audit Transparency. HiringBranch takes the heaviest weighted swing, Bias Audit Transparency at 18% (HiringBranch 60, LinkedIn Recruiter 50), 100% of the weighted advantage it builds, while the widest raw gap is on Human Oversight Design, HiringBranch 52 to LinkedIn Recruiter 66.
Vendor profile
HiringBranch
HiringBranch is an AI skills-assessment platform that measures 50+ communication and soft skills from candidates' open-ended, conversational job-simulation responses (text and voice) to screen and rank applicants for customer-facing roles.
Vendor profile
LinkedIn Recruiter
LinkedIn Recruiter is LinkedIn's enterprise sourcing and candidate-management platform, whose Hiring Assistant add-on and AI-Assisted Search use AI to turn intake notes into qualifications, source and rank candidates, evaluate applicants against recruiter-set qualifications, and draft or send outreach.
§ The record
HiringBranch is filed under Assessment AI, LinkedIn Recruiter under Candidate sourcing AI. They also share 1 secondary category: Screening.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only HiringBranch is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | HiringBranch | LinkedIn Recruiter |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2002 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 23% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiringBranch 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.8 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 44% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiringBranch 52 · LinkedIn Recruiter 66
1.7 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
20% weight · 62% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiringBranch 60 · LinkedIn Recruiter 67
1.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
12% weight · 77% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiringBranch 40 · LinkedIn Recruiter 50
1.2 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 90% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiringBranch 55 · LinkedIn Recruiter 62
1.1 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
15% weight · 96% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiringBranch 35 · LinkedIn Recruiter 38
0.4 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
8% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiringBranch 64 · LinkedIn Recruiter 68
0.3 weighted points to LinkedIn Recruiter
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to -4.3 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.9 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads -5 beside that -4.3.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiringBranch minus LinkedIn Recruiter.
| Category | Weight | HiringBranch | LinkedIn Recruiter | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 67 | -7 | -1.4 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 60 | 50 | +10 | +1.8 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 38 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 62 | -7 | -1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 66 | -14 | -1.7 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 50 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 68 | -4 | -0.3 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 57 (F) | -5 | -4.3 |
§ 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 | HiringBranch | LinkedIn Recruiter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 4 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 5 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 6 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 34 | 5 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
HiringBranch has 19 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 13 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; LinkedIn Recruiter has 39 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 34 with a source URL, 5 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for LinkedIn Recruiter sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 58 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain, and 39 for LinkedIn Recruiter, across 6 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- LinkedIn Recruiter 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