§ The result
Hogan Assessments leads Oleeo by 7 points.
Hogan Assessments scores 47 and Oleeo 40 under rubric v1.0, a 7-point gap across the Assessment and ATS-integrated cohorts. Hogan Assessments leads 6 of the 7 criteria, including Article 11 Technical Documentation, while Oleeo leads 1, including Human Oversight Design. The widest raw gap and the heaviest weighted swing fall on different criteria: FRIA Support (Hogan Assessments 36, Oleeo 25) and Article 11 Technical Documentation at 20% (Hogan Assessments 50, Oleeo 40), the second being 28% of the weighted advantage Hogan Assessments holds across the 6 criteria on that side of the table.
Vendor profile
Hogan Assessments
Hogan Assessments provides science-based personality assessments - chiefly the Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI), Hogan Development Survey (HDS), and Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory (MVPI) - used to predict workplace performance for employee selection and development.
Vendor profile
Oleeo
Oleeo is an enterprise applicant tracking and talent acquisition platform that uses machine learning to score, rank, and screen candidates from resumes, applications, and assessment responses, with prescriptive interview and hire recommendations and a stated diversity/bias-mitigation focus.
§ The record
Hogan Assessments is filed under Assessment AI, Oleeo under ATS-integrated AI. They record no secondary category in common.
Both are in scope of NYC LL 144, Illinois HB 3773, EU AI Act and Colorado AI Act. Only Hogan Assessments is in scope of Mobley v. Workday.
| Record | Hogan Assessments | Oleeo |
|---|---|---|
| Price tier | Mid | Enterprise |
| Headquarters | US | GB |
| Founded | 1987 | 1995 |
§ What decides it
The criteria that move the gap, heaviest swing first.
20% weight · 27% of the movement so far
Article 11 Technical Documentation
Hogan Assessments 50 · Oleeo 40
2.0 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
15% weight · 48% of the movement so far
FRIA Support
Hogan Assessments 36 · Oleeo 25
1.6 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
12% weight · 64% of the movement so far
Post-Market Monitoring
Hogan Assessments 40 · Oleeo 30
1.2 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
15% weight · 78% of the movement so far
Data Governance Disclosure
Hogan Assessments 52 · Oleeo 45
1.1 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
18% weight · 88% of the movement so far
Bias Audit Transparency
Hogan Assessments 44 · Oleeo 40
0.7 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
8% weight · 95% of the movement so far
Customer Documentation
Hogan Assessments 62 · Oleeo 55
0.6 weighted points to Hogan Assessments
12% weight · 100% of the movement so far
Human Oversight Design
Hogan Assessments 52 · Oleeo 55
0.4 weighted points to Oleeo
Weighted delta is the raw difference times the criterion weight, so the 7 figures above sum to +6.8 — the difference between the two totals before either is rounded. Shares are of 7.5 points of movement counted without direction. The table below rounds each side to a whole number first, so its Δ raw total reads +7 beside that +6.8.
§ Category-by-category
Raw score per criterion, with weighted delta.
Δ is Hogan Assessments minus Oleeo.
| Category | Weight | Hogan Assessments | Oleeo | Δ raw | Δ weighted |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 50 | 40 | +10 | +2.0 |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 44 | 40 | +4 | +0.7 |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 36 | 25 | +11 | +1.6 |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 52 | 45 | +7 | +1.1 |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 52 | 55 | -3 | -0.4 |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 40 | 30 | +10 | +1.2 |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 62 | 55 | +7 | +0.6 |
| Total | 100% | 47 (F) | 40 (F) | +7 | +6.8 |
§ 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 | Hogan Assessments | Oleeo | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | Cited | Absences | Audit / hosting | ||
| Article 11 Technical Documentation | 20% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Bias Audit Transparency | 18% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| FRIA Support | 15% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 0 | 1 | — |
| Data Governance Disclosure | 15% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Human Oversight Design | 12% | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Post-Market Monitoring | 12% | 3 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 1 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| Customer Documentation | 8% | 4 | 0 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 2 | 1 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
| All criteria | 100% | 20 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain | 10 | 6 | Sources on the vendor's own domain |
Hogan Assessments has 26 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 20 with a source URL, 6 documented absences; Oleeo has 16 evidence rows across 7 of 7 criteria — 10 with a source URL, 6 documented absences.
Provenance
The scores above are documented by 42 evidence rows on file for these two vendors: 26 for Hogan Assessments, across 1 distinct source domain, and 16 for Oleeo, across 1 distinct source domain.
- Rubric
- v1.0
- Hogan Assessments last reviewed
- July 17, 2026 · HireAIScore editorial team
- Oleeo 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