§ The result
4 points separate HiringBranch and Workable.
HiringBranch (Assessment) edges Workable (ATS-integrated) by 4 points under rubric v1.0, 52 to 48. HiringBranch leads 4 of the 7 criteria, including Bias Audit Transparency, while Workable leads 3, including Human Oversight Design. Bias Audit Transparency is both the widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing — HiringBranch 60, Workable 42 — and at an 18% weight it carries 51% of the weighted advantage HiringBranch holds across the 4 criteria on that side of the table.
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
Workable
Workable is an all-in-one applicant tracking system and HR platform whose AI feature layer (Workable AI / Workable Agent) sources, screens, scores, and matches candidates and drafts recruiting content within the recruiting workflow.
§ The record
HiringBranch is filed under Assessment AI, Workable under ATS-integrated 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 | Workable |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Enterprise | Mid |
| Headquarters | CA | US |
| Founded | 2014 | 2012 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
18% weight · 39% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
HiringBranch 60 · Workable 42
3.2 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 57% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
HiringBranch 35 · Workable 25
1.5 weighted points to HiringBranch
12% weight · 72% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
HiringBranch 52 · Workable 62
1.2 weighted points to Workable
20% weight · 84% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
HiringBranch 60 · Workable 55
1.0 weighted points to HiringBranch
8% weight · 92% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
HiringBranch 64 · Workable 56
0.6 weighted points to HiringBranch
15% weight · 97% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
HiringBranch 55 · Workable 58
0.4 weighted points to Workable
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
HiringBranch 40 · Workable 42
0.2 weighted points to Workable
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +4.5 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 8.3 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +4 beside that +4.5.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is HiringBranch minus Workable.
| Category | Weight | HiringBranch | Workable | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 60 | 55 | +5 | +1.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 60 | 42 | +18 | +3.2 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 35 | 25 | +10 | +1.5 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 55 | 58 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 62 | -10 | -1.2 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 42 | -2 | -0.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 64 | 56 | +8 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 52 (F) | 48 (F) | +4 | +4.5 |
§ 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 | Workable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 2 | 1 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | — |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domainSources on a separate domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 3 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 13 | 6 | Audit reportSources on the vendor's own domain | 12 | 6 | Sources 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; Workable has 17 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 12 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; some documentation or audit rows for Workable sit on a domain separate from the vendor's own site.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 36 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 19 for HiringBranch, across 1 distinct source domain, and 17 for Workable, across 3 distinct source domains.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- HiringBranch last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Workable 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